|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 12:54:03 GMT -5
This is a must read!! * "The Pink Swastika - Historical Record of How Rampant Homosexuality Plus Satanism Shaped The Nazi Party" -- Finally, a well-written, documented book that reveals the occultism/homosexualism that formed the Nazi Party and sustained it through to the bitter end! You will finally understand how Hitler and his Nazis viewed the world -- through the pink lenses of homosexuality. In paganism throughout history, bisexuality/homosexuality has always been prominently displayed and is the driving force behind the scenes. Such is the case of Nazism and Adolf Hitler. You will understand the causes of pre-war events from 1922-1939 and the Holocaust from 1938-1945 much more clearly once you read this book. You will also better understand the current drive toward a "gay culture" in Western Society and where this trend is going to lead us. One of the most important historic books you shall ever read. This book belongs on the bookshelf of every citizen concerned with the direction our culture is taking. -- cuttingedge.org/detail.cfm?ID=667
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 14:01:50 GMT -5
There are things that I would not want to post here because they have to do this satanism. Both Hitler and Crowley.....practed the same thing. I'm not saying that some gender confused teenager should be condemned like a satanist. However, they must know the truth that their sin will cause their death and that homosexuality is practed (on purpose) by people who live in rebellion to God. I consider the 'gender confused", more as broken hearted. So possibly it's more of a woman at the well approach. This is more about the truth about the homosexual movement and how evil it is.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Sept 8, 2006 14:16:27 GMT -5
And also wku... many people died fighting the nazis... I have yet to see gay people shove people into concentration camps. Also, one of the famous Anglo-Saxon deciferers of German communications was gay... so the Nazis were their enemy too. Did you miss the point? Don't Nazis need love too? According to the "logic" of today's definition of tolerance, you should be accepting of the nazi creedo irrespective of it's belief system. Because it's what YOU believe is right, then it's right for you. My point really is that this concept of tolerance only cuts one way...only if you have the prevailing and accepted belief system are you entitled to "tolerance". If you have a counter-belief system, then you are discounted and unacceptable--that's what this idea of "tolerance" means in today's culture. In other words, it's hypocritical and provides a forum for a self serving agenda. And just a side bar, homosexuals were, in fact, sent to the gas chambers and concentration camps in Nazi Germany. You probably knew that and your statement is a typo. Ernst Röhm, the leader of the SA, was an open homosexual--Hitler personally authorized his execution in 1934.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 8, 2006 14:57:02 GMT -5
Not really wkufan. You see because to be a nazi you kinda have to agree with everything that came from it. Because Hitler was the founder, and everything was going how he wanted it to go. It's not like it was a group that was 'corrupted' by the actions of a few people who weren't the leaders. There is nothing illegal about being a Nazi (in America), but it is in essence taking a leak on all those that died fighting against the tyrannt that lead them. I have yet to see an armed conflict that resulted directly from homosexuality on such a massive scale as WWII... I could have pointed how Hitler as a self proclaimed Protestant contributed to it, but I know that doesn't mean every Christian today supports Hitler, that's just stupid. There was one interesting article I found when I made the post earlier, but I thought the source was probably 'biased' because it was something called 'freethinkers.org.' So obviously they have an agenda. (the one I gave was a .edu) So I did you a favor and didn't put it up, cause I knew you would see this as well. But in return you give me three sources from one institution that states what the site is: We believe our site represents the most complete, concise and comprehensive source of information available which deals with the Biblical prophecy of The New World Order. Our Christian organization is a fundamental independent Baptist Church outreach ministry. We are dedicated to the Scriptures as the only revelation of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. - www.cuttingedge.org/So they believe that they know things better then everyone else, they don't sound too certain, even of themselves.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 15:04:10 GMT -5
Yes, Pach. I find it appalling how you cling to an obviously biased source of "news."
Wanna know three great principals of journaliam?? Starts with an accronym, FAB. Fair, Accurate, Balance. Cutting Edge clearly lacks, um, ALL of them.
It can not be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 15:04:40 GMT -5
The only question should be. Is what is printed in their articles true.? Yes or no? Hitler was Roman Catholic. He "said" he was a born-again Christin. You must consider that he was a politician and whoever he spoke to at the time, he would identify with them. He was an occoultist...was he not?? He was in the same league as Alister Crowley..right??
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 15:11:50 GMT -5
The only truth I can guarantee you, is he would be well impressed with how you guys opperate. He'd want to ask for tips.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 15:13:11 GMT -5
Fair, Accurate, Balance=truth. If those cutting edge articles are false, you guys being the great investigative reporters that you are. Prove it....lets debate...Hitler/Crowley homosexuals....into the occult?
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 15:15:29 GMT -5
No he wouldn't curvvy. You would be surprised to learn that you think just like him...in many ways. I must run....prove the article wrong. Oh and to the Christians who don't like the cutting edge. What does Wilkerson say about them??
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 8, 2006 15:16:48 GMT -5
Actually you made it much easier then that. I didn't know who Crowley was so I looked that up, and yes he was a nut, who happened to be bisexual apparently. Now all I have to do is give you one straight person in the occult and that means that all straight people are in the occult.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 15:21:19 GMT -5
Ohh, I got one. My sister. And she's straight.
Ask and ye shall recieve Justaman
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 8, 2006 15:25:27 GMT -5
So now, since Hitler was a supposed homosexual in the occult, Crowley was a bisexual in the occult, and Cervy's sister who is straight is in the occult, that means... everyone is in the occult.
Except asexuals...
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 15:27:40 GMT -5
I love asexuals!! (side note)
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 15:38:35 GMT -5
It says Hitler was possesed and he used his powers to hypnotize people ... you're saying this is true?? And, if you're possesed, then aren't you NOT in control of your actions??
Seriously, Pach, use your heart and mine and see the the truth that CuttingEdge seriously whacked and, umm, false.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 8, 2006 15:40:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 15:41:36 GMT -5
So now, since Hitler was a supposed homosexual in the occult, Crowley was a bisexual in the occult, and Cervy's sister who is straight is in the occult, that means... everyone is in the occult. Except asexuals... No, the "left hand path" people this is what they do. Degrade themselvs with homosexual sex and such, as a means to mock God's plane for purity. True or false?? They want us to convert to a "new way of thinking". True or false?? The homosexual movement is a tool of the devil. True or false?? Check it out....investigators.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 16:08:59 GMT -5
It only mocks God to you. Heck, what I believe mocks your God.
So do you. I don't trust either.
The only tool here is you.
So a pitcher of false all around. Want another order?
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 16:12:43 GMT -5
Ok...then the point goes to me. If you won't debate.....in a reasonable manor.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 16:17:50 GMT -5
I kept it simple for you. You asked true or false, you got your answer. But you won't believe it unless you want to.
You can claim all the points you want to, but I'll just take another page out of your book (and it's not the Bible) You'll just see in on "Judgement day." I promise not to rub it in your face too much.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 16:20:09 GMT -5
Your dismissing the truth. You won't even look at it.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 16:27:45 GMT -5
I did look at it. I've read the article you provided several times.
Also, did I ask the question about deomin possession in this thread?
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 8, 2006 17:55:04 GMT -5
If they're 'mocking God' let Him take care of it. If you are so sure you're right then why do you feel the need to win? Wouldn't you already win in the end?
This board has disintigrated into a growling match but I leave with one statement.
John 3:10 - 15
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 18:06:40 GMT -5
If they're 'mocking God' let Him take care of it. If you are so sure you're right then why do you feel the need to win? Wouldn't you already win in the end? This board has disintigrated into a growling match but I leave with one statement. John 3:10 - 15 You are belieling the Word of God. Why would a Christian throw cold water on another Christian who was attempting to tear down a spiritual stronghold? You need to examine yourself to ensure that you are in the faith. Do I feel the need to win......I'm presenting the truth to people that are rejecting it.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 8, 2006 18:35:51 GMT -5
I am simply a Christian with an alternative view. Like one in Galileos time who didn't conclude that the Earth was the center, just because it was created first, context is very important... and sometimes that means going away from the 'popular interpretation' and reading it without anyone outside telling you what it means.
Giving one example and then applying that all cases must be true don't work in science, don't work in sociology, and doesn't work in life. If you don't believe me when I say that since 'one straight man being a part of the occult means they all are', why would I believe you when you say 'one gay man being a part of the occult means they all are' ?
I think you're confused because you see everyone under a label acting as one toward one common goal. For example you would say something like: since I am a Christian, I have to believe EVERYTHING you believe in and act as a complete unit, and to accomplish our ends.
This is why you believe the logic that one being something means they all are. But the definition of a Christian is believing Jesus was the Son of Man, and after that there are specific groups. Does that mean you believe what I believe just because we are both Christians? No, just we hold at least that one thing in common.
So if Christians don't all agree on everything, what makes you think any group, be they staight, homosexual, Jewish, black, white, sinners, or saints act as a complete unit and believe everything their peers believe?
Through looking at the behavior of many groups, I can tell you there are always disagreements, there is no 'conspiracy'.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 19:24:08 GMT -5
I am simply a Christian with an alternative view. Like one in Galileos time who didn't conclude that the Earth was the center, just because it was created first, context is very important... and sometimes that means going away from the 'popular interpretation' and reading it without anyone outside telling you what it means. Giving one example and then applying that all cases must be true don't work in science, don't work in sociology, and doesn't work in life. If you don't believe me when I say that since 'one straight man being a part of the occult means they all are', why would I believe you when you say 'one gay man being a part of the occult means they all are' ? I think you're confused because you see everyone under a label acting as one toward one common goal. For example you would say something like: since I am a Christian, I have to believe EVERYTHING you believe in and act as a complete unit, and to accomplish our ends. This is why you believe the logic that one being something means they all are. But the definition of a Christian is believing Jesus was the Son of Man, and after that there are specific groups. Does that mean you believe what I believe just because we are both Christians? No, just we hold at least that one thing in common. So if Christians don't all agree on everything, what makes you think any group, be they staight, homosexual, Jewish, black, white, sinners, or saints act as a complete unit and believe everything their peers believe? Through looking at the behavior of many groups, I can tell you there are always disagreements, there is no 'conspiracy'. Psalms 2: 1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, 4 He thast sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: The Bible speaks of a conspircy. I did not say every "gay" person was in the occult. I said persons in the occult defile their bodies by preforming homosexual acts with one and other in an attempt to mock God's desire for purity in our lives. This is a fact. This sin causes death...you don't believe that. Then tear out those parts in your Bible where it clearly states that homosexuality is sin. Even the devil worshipers get it. Are you a Christian...I don't know even the devils believe and tremble. What is you testimony. And to clear the air you are a female right? At least I thought you stated so in another post. There is no, "disagreement" on being redeamed to Christ for a Christian. For without having been redeamed, 'to Him"..you are no Christian.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 19:59:38 GMT -5
Just, I need to leave Pach all to you for a dar or two. It seriosuly pains me to read his posts. They hurt me. I feel like I'd need to be on drugs to understand Pach.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 20:04:38 GMT -5
I always took you for the anti-depressant type. Insecure....sensitive.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 20:09:02 GMT -5
I am a bit sensitive, I have an allergic reaction to stupidity and bigotry. Now like I said, you're giving me such a reaction. I need to keep away from your posts.
AND, you're assuming AGAIN!! JESUS CHRIST, use your head man. God gave it to you for a reason.
Now, if you don't mind, I need some green tea to calm down.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 20:12:01 GMT -5
Oh, i knew I forgot to repsond to a point of yours. Ya, no. Not a fan of anti-depressents. IN FACT, if you didn't assume like a beep and knew me as a person and not as the labels you've given me, you'd know I'm one of the most optimistic and cheery people. It's a joke that i use a quote from Charmed with my friend. About being optimistic, not stupid.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 20:15:18 GMT -5
Ya...you keep telling yourself that your not gay while you drink your green tea...and plan you next gay bar excision. You must be wearing a flamboyant robe....Elton
|
|