RDP

[rdp]

Yea'.....RDP was the mean ol' UltraCon "victimizing" those poor ol' UltraLibs:

Let's backtrack a bit to see just who else has been "rude" & antagonizing to see if you hold others to the same standard y'all have attempted to hold me to. Let's take a little journey together, shall we? Mind you, I stopped quoting on pg. 20.....Of a 138 pg. thread.


Nighthawk, post #31: Oy...you really believe the stuff you wrote too. That is the most saddening part. Robes were bifurcated in Jesus' day now? Ugh. How about a source for that? Pink is effeminant? Let me guess...red is for whores too right? What year are you living in? It isn't 1938 anymore.


Titus2woman, post #25: I always said I wanted to buy my preacher some shiny pink bell bottoms... since all pants are mens garments... so silly... and I don't even own a bifurcated garment except a set of Carhart Coveralls to work the bees in (try that in a skirt).


Light, post #32: Will let you in on a little secret, Det. 22:5 was written long before Jesus the man wore any thing!
Fact!! Men wore robes that would show their manhood if the man went up steps.


Titus2woman, post #33: Yeah... Take THAT! Light, you are shining bright today.


Titus2woman, post #37: Very... tiny... bubble.

I pray that you gain a broader view of God and His power to save. Before you squander all the years He has given you upon the earth trying to mold His beautiful and wonderfully diverse humanity into a tiny little fragmented cult please pray that your eyes be opened.

He did not make us all the same and attempting to diminish those that can not be hammered into your particular brand of religion with your sarcastic and angry words is shameful and hides terrible error. The requirements that you falsely attribute to Him for your works based salvation are a clanging gong.

If we have a work for the Lord here on planet earth, it is not to wear the 'right clothes' it is to be clothed in mercy and compassion, both sadly lacking in your post. May God have mercy on your confused and angry soul.


Light, post #43: I've found those preachers who bring up a subject of sexual deviancy usually have a personal problem with that deviancy!


Titus2woman, post #64: I would guess that anyone who would actually let you into their home has no idea what kind of a person you really are. I can not say I would be comfortable with someone like you even on my property, let alone in my house. You come across and angry, aggressive and frankly, kinda scary.


BeenThinkin, post #67: rdp has "tucked his tail and run!"


OnTheFritz, post #70: Rdp, maybe you can print out and staple your Word docs into your Bible to fill in what was lacking in the actual text.


OnTheFritz, post #91: And yes, I realize that people here disagreeing with you just makes you happy and even more resolved. . The crazy liberals sinners!


See navygoat1998, post #100:


comeasyouare (Mrs. Ultra-Femi-Nazi), post #117: This one thing at times makes my BLOOD BOIL to put it lightly. It's indicative of the extremism of their doctrine. Even when the alternative is our country coming under Communist dictatorship! I say -- Keep your dresses and come under Communism! ! ! WITHOUT WOMEN WORKING IN THE MUNITIONS FACTORIES WE WOULD HAVE LOST WW II. HOW WOULD YOU HAVE LIKED THAT???? IT WAS WOMEN WHO ACTUALLY WON THE WAR FOR US ! ! ! About the only men left here in this country were the ones who didn't pass the physical. Our country drafted married men with big families. WHO WAS GOING TO BUILD THE AIRPLANES, TANKS, BULLETS, AMMUNITIONS, ETC.??? Those women are PATRIOTS ! !


Nitehawh013, post #152: So, oh brilliant educated one, where is your degree from? Or are you just another data-miner/collector like most who accepts the data they find that they agree with but just blows off the rest that proves them wrong?


Titus2woman, post #154: You should spend at least a little of that scholarly time in Tact and Decorum 101and perhaps a minor in Anger Management.


comeasyouare, post #159: SORRY... you MEN can't have YOUR cake and eat it too... Our country took men down a peg a long time ago.....I find it difficult to answer posts written by an angry man. You need to quit "frothing at the mouth." (Yea', whatever could have elicited such a response ?)


Titus2woman, post #160 (This one realllllly takes the cake ): I find that most everyone here has treated you with respect ,


Nitehawk013, post #186: the Pastor ranks higher than the scripture. WE just pick and choose when he has the right to veto scripture and add to it.


Seekerman, post #188 (referring to Elder Epley): The tragic thing in this is that folks actually listen to this yahoo and believe what he says is based on scripture.



Yea'.....mean ol' RDP !

[Jermyn Davidson]

RDP,
You're not mean.

[Pressing-On]

Awesome, you didn't quote me in that list.

Listen, it doesn't matter what you dragged out later, it is how it began and you are on page Three. None of what you posted offended me in the least, I'm just saying for arguments sake, you kind of started it with the "men can now wear dresses made explicitly for....men."

No one believes that, RDP. And when you go back and read, beginning with Post #1 up to your Post #24, no one said that at all.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by rdp

Oh, you mean "simple concepts" such as comprehending what "do not" means ?

No, understand simple concepts such as "not with" means.

BeenThinkin, post #67: rdp has "tucked his tail and run!"

No, that would be "when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled. . ."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Of course you can't show where I said "Oneness Pentecostals have this great, massive problem with tons of people dying and letting their kids die for lack of medical attention because preachers teach and they believe going to the doctor is a sin."

You're being dishonest. But at least you don't wear a wedding ring, I bet.

Yep, I'm just a terrible dishonest no-wedding-ring-wearing whatever-you-want-to-label-me.

But hey, thanks for playing!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It looks like you two were attacking people and they were attacking doctrine.

Anyway, you were supposed to check this for me. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...60&postcount=6

You refer to the Interlinear quite a bit and it is using the same definition.

http://interlinearbible.org/deuteronomy/22-5.htm

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/yihyeh_1961.htm

mensclothes.jpg

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

RDP,
You're not mean.

Woo-Hoo!


I love you man !

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Awesome, you didn't quote me in that list.

Listen, it doesn't matter what you dragged out later, it is how it began and you are on page Three. None of what you posted offended me in the least, I'm just saying for arguments sake, you kind of started it with the "men can now wear dresses made explicitly for....men."

No one believes that, RDP. And when you go back and read, beginning with Post #1 up to your Post #24, no one said that at all.

He left mine blank

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Awesome, you didn't quote me in that list.

Listen, it doesn't matter what you dragged out later, it is how it began and you are on page Three. None of what you posted offended me in the least, I'm just saying for arguments sake, you kind of started it with the "men can now wear dresses made explicitly for....men."

No one believes that, RDP. And when you go back and read, beginning with Post #1 up to your Post #24, no one said that at all.

First, you are very wrong....Titus2woman very explicitly stated that she was just fine with a dress made for a man....with a "murse" to match it !

And, I was pointing out that if it's acceptable for women to wear pants because they are "made for a woman," then the inverse has to be equally acceptable.....Dresses made for men!

Finally, I already showed which side started with the snarky-smug comments. At this point, if you cannot see who started it all.....You're merely ignoring their actual quotes.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yep, I'm just a terrible dishonest no-wedding-ring-wearing whatever-you-want-to-label-me.

But hey, thanks for playing!

"Oh, you can call me Ray, or you can call me J. . . ."

"but you doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"