Monday, March 19, 2018

Track & Field Grad Assistant Speaks Up & Resigns From MSU

I have said it before and will say it again, Only a Pedophile Would Defend The Actions Of Larry Nassar. What the Pedophile needs to know is that their victims grow and the hate does too. Don't continue to be the freak and pervert by avoiding, deflecting and even blaming others for your actions.

 Thank God that a real hell exists, because without it, the sick freaks that destroy lives would never receive the justice they deserve and even asked for with their own actions.

If you're a "Nassar"...GET RIGHT! Repent!And pray for mercy on your soul. I know I will!

Kassie Powell...GOD is faithful and HE will rectify all wrongs!!!! Believe that!!!


  1. Judges 21:10-24
    God approves by his silence the kidnapping and forced marriages (and the subsequent "knowing them" which was sure to follow) of hundreds of women as well as the cold blooded murder of all of the men, boys and non virgin women

    So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

    The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, “How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God’s curse.”

    Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find enough wives for them when we dest60royed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'” So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

  2. Robert, Robert, Robert....R Silly, back in business....

    Sylvester, do you even know the WHY of this story? It actually began over 150 years prior to what you are reading here...It began with a band of people known as Gibeonites In Joshua 9...OK, after you read that, come back to JUDGES and see how they were judged AFTER spreading their idolatry and false worship and false beliefs AND even sexual perversions including bisexuality and homosexuality!!!! Yes, they were called "Son's of Belial"...GOd saw these actors as corrupt and undeserving of life...They were nasty, vile and controlled the night like some vampires looking for lust, perversion and folly....

    See, 150 years earlier an agreement was made to PROTECT these people against the instructions of the Lord to utterly destroy them. They were 5 nations of people God said to do this to and the Gibeonites were one, but Israel, made friends instead and vowed to protect them. So Israel's leaders, from the beginning disobeyed...THEY made the situation worse. Gibea was not a large people. Look at it, if they could disguise themselves in old clothes and moldy bread, they were not a large contingent, but they were huge in wickedness, which including murdering babies and children, the same thing you're complaining about here.

    So, why is it that you don't complain when people kill their kids and act in a perverted fashion? That's because you have a "GOd bias", you only complain when God says kill the children and families as he did here, with no regard to what has actually led up to it or what is happening...Could God have done it better??? We'll I'll ask him when I see him, but there is a context here that you give no credence to.

    Benjamin was so tied to protecting these people that they would fight against divine command to do it. Theirs was a fight for humanity, no matter how damaging and degraded that the humanity they were protecting was...These people (Gibeonites, Now Mizpites) did not like R. Kelly in the read and think they had some sort of decency, but they just as well would rape and kill you and your whole family as the next and not care. God moved to get rid of this and told his people how to do it. The men were foolish enough to fight to the death nearly of everyone.

    The taking of the Shiolish women was the way for Benjamin to survive as a people. They could no longer marry any of the Israelite women. That was their punishment. I told you before noone gets to pick their own punishment for wrong, and gladly so!!!

    Those men took women and PAID the fathers according to custom and made them WIVES, not concubines (which was a word in existence at the time for women who were less than wives) They were virgins and those who had no greater allegiances to their country or homes. I am sure some didn't want to go be a wife. But at the end of the day they were honored and not defiled as you impose upon the scripture.

    So yeas we see death...yes we see people, even families being killed...but not suddenly and not without cause. What we see is judgement being fulfilled and that after plenty of ample warning. So what you don't like it...That's not reflective on God's character, that is your lack of understanding.

    We may not know why God does, but we do know this, his way is right, no matter how it may look. It looks that way because we don't know and if we were given the same set of circumstances would stand dumbfounded like the idiots that WE are...and that's for sure!!!

    1. REV...Perfect Reply!

      Amazing many folks want to paint God to be some type of monster. Sorry I for ONE am not buying IT! The LORD has given men throughout the annals of time, ample opportunities to REPENT, but men CHOOSE rather to remain in darkness and perversion, rather than walk in the BRIGHT LIGHT God in His WISDOM has shown them.

      YOU are 100% Correct. It's a GOD bias. I mean the BIBLE speaks so plainly, the evil of man's heart, yet we will muster through our "intellect" to believe we are good and deserve "better" from Him. Just like some would say God was not RIGHTEOUS when judging Canaan, while ignoring the fact these people lived totally in rebellion, committing all sorts of illicit acts of sins for over 400 years. Not to mention the first time the LORD destroyed the world by a flood. He repented he made man, because their hearts were on evil "CONTINUALLY". Just because God allows, doesn't mean he "approves". You should know that personally Robert. You sin against Him EVERYDAY (omission and commission) and the LORD yet wake you up everyday, gives you the capacity to function, and the ability to BELIEVE and walk in his WAY.

    2. Come off it. I'm sure you raged and shook your fist at the terrorist who brought down the WTC. But really, what was different between Yahweh "judging" Cannan for their wickedness or living in rebellion and Allah "judging" the west for it's wickedness and rebellion. The only difference is that islamic terrorist are committing their acts in more modern times, with modern weaponry which makes killing mass numbers more efficient and according to you, have the wrong god.

      If planes existed 3,000 years ago or bombs existed 3,000 years ago and some Israelite soldier blew up a canaanite tower, killing thousands, you'd be clapping for "gods justice". But some Islamic terrorist do the exact same thing today in the name of Allah and you want to decry them as evil and wicked.

      You only think they're evil and wicked not because of their actions, but because you believe they have the wrong god. That's it. Because Islmaic terrorists believe they have the right god and they believe they are executing gods judgement for what they see as wickedness. But that's different, right, because they are doing it in the name of a god you don't believe in?


    3. Nowhere in that passage does it say they paid the womens father and it's not as if it makes it better, both you and I know that. Don't know if you have a daughter or granddaughter, but imagine your reaction if some man forcibly took them and offered you a few hundred dollars? Of course we both know what your reaction would be. So don't pretend that this was ok because it happened in the bible.

      And we both know killing people because of not following a religion or disobeying a god is wrong and evil. It's the reason why you think ISIS or Islamic terrorists are evil. Because they are doing the EXACT same thing ancient Israelites did in the bible. Except they are doing it in modern times, have more modern and efficient means of killing and according to you have the wrong god.

      But if they had the right god in your opinion, it would be ok, because after all, all the west has to do is repent, turn to Allah and convert to Islam. Since they insist on striving in their sin and wickedness, it's there own fault. This would be your attitude if you thought ISIS had the right god or the guys who flew planes into the WTC.

      Put that story in the bible, where Moses is commanding Israelites to blow up an Amalekite tower, killing thousands (you know, for worshipping other gods besides Yahweh) and suddenly the slaughter is good and holy.

      So it's not that you disagree with mass slaughter and genocide but you disagree if it's done in the name of a god you don't believe in.

    4. R Silly...I mean Robert,

      I said they PAID the fathers according to the custom. What we find is that a family was always paid for the hand of a young lady. You'll find that in Deut. 22:28-29. It was 50 shekels of silver. I would "suspect" that the custom or rule would have been followed because they only ones they took were virgins and the families would more than likely considered it good that their daughters went on to formulate and have families.

      And in case you haven't noticed, ISIS wants to kill YOUR Black behind too!!! So The bible is equal opportunity anti-terrorism no matter what god somebody is doing their dirt in the name your argument regarding that means nothing to me...It is confused...when you look at the customs of Canaan what you will find is that they not only had the 420 years that Israel was in Egypt to get right, but about another 400 prior to that and 40 years after Israel left Egypt. In all they had over 860 years to get their act together....They didn't!!!

      I think the best way to understand the holiness of GOd is to understand why Jesus came. It is because of HIM that we are not consumed. He displays the mercy of GOd ONLY through and by his blood atonement. The Old Testament displays what the righteousness of GOd looks like unbridled by grace. We see that at times. The Amalekites got what they sowed. They were treated kindly and responded harshly and even killed old and sickly folk, hated the Jews with a passion and even Agag was hateful and arrogant to his death. If GOd is anything he is faithul to his word. In other words he doesn't lie. To not judge Amalek he would have lied...You and I won't exist before we catch God in a lie. Anyway, your high level of human righteousness won't understand that...

      Now the question is, since you don't have 860 years, how long will it take YOU to get right??? It's already taken too long. How much longer do you think you have?

    5. No rage and shaking fist here. If you want to believe the lie, Allah "judging" the west for its wickedness and rebellion, you are DELUSIONAL! Fact of the matter is, evidence points to show Moslems did not commit this atrocity. It’s been proven scientifically, two planes could not have caused destruction of the twin towers. When these buildings were constructed, they were built to survive these such attacks. Some say the CIA and the Mossad had their hands deep in this self-destructive event. Therefore, YOUR point is moot.

      And theologically speaking, there is ONLY One GOD, and that’s the GOD of the BIBLE. AGAIN, the LORD long-suffered with CANAAN for centuries, before casting judgment because the heart of the nation were on “evil continually”. SO YOU CUT IT OUT, to imagine if planes existed 3000 years ago. It’s plain as DAY the Scriptures that the heart of all men are deceitful, no matter WHAT religion they espouse. The folks behind the devastation to deceive many like YOU to believe this WAS DONE by Islamic terrorists, when this was a set up to enact laws to control its citizens via HOMELAND SECURITY only PROVES the BIBLE to be TRUE, their hearts (like yours) are deceitful beyond measures.

    6. Whatever. The point still stands. When muslim terrorists commit attrocities in the name of their god,, believing they are acting on his behalf doling out judgement and justice to unbelievers and sinners (aka non-muslims) you get very judgemental and want to talk about how they are evil.

      But when ancient hebrews do the exact same thing in the bible, suddenly it's ok because they are acting on behalf of a god you personally believe in. As I said, hyprocrisy.

  3. The Cope is strong in this one! How about gods others crimes like genocide, forcing people to believe lies so he can punish them, making access to the "tree of knowledge" extremely easy in the name of "free will" but sending a flaming sword and angels to guard the "tree of life", no concern for free will there, eh?

    1. God approves rape. How about you show me a specific bible verse that unambiguously forbids rape (or slavery) because I can find you one that unambiguously forbids wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics or working on the sabbath and one where a man was ordered stoned to death by god for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week.

      Not any verse that can be interpreted as forbidding rape or slavery, but one that says "Thou shalt not force sexual intercourse on an unwilling partner" or "You must not own another human being as property" or any variation thereof. Not some ambiguous passage that can be stretched to mean such. The fact that god didn't unambiguously forbid these things lets any objective reader know that at best, he was indifferent to them.

    2. Robert said: "God approves rape. How about you show me a specific bible verse that unambiguously forbids rape"

      Deuteronomy 22:25-27 ~ 25-But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26-But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27-For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

      I would say that gives a pretty good idea of what God thinks about rapists and the act itself. If death is a result of the act, do ya "think" that may be a specific condemnation of the act???

    3. So far as slavery, AS I ALREADY STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN...Slavery is a result and product of sin. As it is in the scripture God REDEFINES slavery for his people so much until the very act is defined out of existence...BY EXAMPLE God shows how he feels by delivering nearly every bible character you see, including a whole nation out of slavery.

      Now we KNOW from the law codes of Hammurabbi that slavery was severe. Customs of the day were to kill or severely injure slaves for even talking back. Hammurabi's code says that ears were cut off for even mentioning or declaring freedom and even talking about being free. Slave owners bragged more of the stock of their slaves than of the land they owned.

      What you are trying to do, like most is sneak in a 21st century view and standard on people of antiquity. In other words, you are not interpreting the actions nor the bible in the time and context in which it was delivered, you are imposing a modern standard on history.

      I know you are not an historian and neither am I, BUT I have studied ANE history and historical critical method and Robert, it is not done as you suppose. Neither is history evaluated as you apply your assumptions...What you are doing is called anachronism.

      What that means is that you are applying standards of a later era (our modern century) to a people of an earlier era. What historians do is apply like standards of the same era and make comparisons.

      What we find in doing that is that the bible narrative on sexuality, slavery and laws pertaining to it is significantly above other narratives of the day.When I say significantly, I mean a whole world of difference. What we find is that other law codes concerning slavery in particularly, called for the killing of slaves for nearly any reason. In addition no slave ever had rights...I mean of any kind!!!!

      Now, I know you, like most, "believe" (and that is an expression of faith as I will show) that God SHOULD have spoken across all times, languages and boarders if his aim was to save all humanity. I will say that he did when he spoke through Jesus, but to place that in perspective, you should ask, what would people understand better, a 2018 Western United States morality and moral code (which is probably more confusing than anything) or the highest moral standard in the time in which they lived?

      One more thin, in reference to my previous note, in every story of rape that we can think of in the Bible, including that of David towards Bathsheba, from Dinah, Tamar and even the Priests wife in Judges 19, when rape occurred the judgement that God let happen was DEATH. In David's case, it was the Death of his son, and he had to care for Bathsheba as a wife the rest o his life. On other person(s) who committed the crime they were either killed or murdered...So I think it is obvious what God thinks of rape and perverted sexual activity.

    4. You keep bringing up all these silly rhetorical arguments ie the flamimg swords that have already been explained via biblical interpretation. The reason for the sword was to show God's mercy towards man who mad a choice to DISOBEY HIS COMMAND, keeping him away from the tree of life, knowing that if they would eat of it, they will remain on a sinful state perpetually.

      I suggest you study at least a commentary before you come here to rant your hatred against the God of the Bible. You come across as IGNORANT.

    5. YOU SAID:

      The reason for the sword was to show God's mercy towards man who mad a choice to DISOBEY HIS COMMAND,


      The exact same reason ISIS and other Islamic terrorist use today. "Not our fault we drove a bus into a crowd of people. All you had to do was repent and become muslims and live exactly as the quran says. It's your own fault. This is god's justice" -some islamic terrorist

    6. Fundamentally, YOU ARE INCORRECT. Like mixing apples and collard greens or even WORSE. You can't compare the MERCY of the CHRISTIAN GOD to a Muslim seeking forgiveness from ALLAH. Truth of the MATTER is there is no ALLAH.The Only GOD there is, is the MERCIFUL GOO of the BIBLE.

      Bump your gums all you want, to say He approves rape, and use silly analogies he made man to punish him and he put a fiery sword to keep them from eating blah blah blah all you WANT, only shows HOW IGNORANT YOU ARE.

    7. You're just proving what I'm saying....the fact is, you only disapprove of Islamic terrorist because you think they have the wrong god. So you approve of murder and genocide if the god you believe in orders it. It's funny that Abraham is praised for being willing to knife his son to death for Yahweh, yet no christian anywhere would do the same in the 21st century and a christian who would other christians would accuse him of

      1. Not being a true christian (TM)
      2. Being bat blank insane
      3. A combination of both

      Which tells me your true feelings on that particular story. Your actions betray you. You can all you want say it was different then, out of context etc etc. But if it came down to it, you wouldn't kill your kid because god told you to. Here's how that would look in the 21st century and we all know it.

      So whats the difference between these two verses:
      Quran 2:191-193
      191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

      192. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

      193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

      Essentially Allah telling Muslims to kill unbelievers wherever they find them unless they repent and become Muslims

      And this verse

      So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands. And he smote them ... even twenty cities ... with a very great slaughter. Judges 11:29-39

      Except for the fact that one comes from a god you don't believe in?

    8. NOPE. Has nothing to do with a "WRONG" GOD. Again there IS NO ALLAH! The QURAN is not the WORD of GOD. I definitely DISAPPROVE of anyone doing anything is A GOD who is FALSE. There is ONLY one GOD and one WORD of GOD. It is true BIBLICAL History Abraham was told to SACRIFICE his son. GOD has not and will not ask any to do that today. HE did say in ORDER to be His Disciple, one must HATE father and mother and sister and BROTHER. Has nothing to do with taking anything out of CONTEXT, something YOU SO OFTEN DO. All your QURAN listing here is USELESS!

    9. You: Again there IS NO ALLAH! The QURAN is not the WORD of GOD

      Me: One billion plus Muslims would disagree with you. Besides you're saying I'm right they're wrong, how does one go about discerning which one of you is right and which one of you is wrong? What kind of objective test can one perform? To me, you're both off your rockers.

      You: Abraham was told to SACRIFICE his son. GOD has not and will not ask any to do that today.

      Me: Why not? In the bible, god says he never changes. So one of you is wrong. God or you? What's happening here is that you know someone killing their child because a voice in their head told them to if certifiably crazy. You also know that killing children is wrong. But since you believe the bible, you have to believe that god told Abraham to do it and you have to believe everything god did is good, even if you otherwise know it isn't. So you rationalize that god wouldn't say that to anyone today, despite the fact that god never changes.

      You: Has nothing to do with taking anything out of CONTEXT, something YOU SO OFTEN DO

      Me: Whenever the bible says something that is seemingly good and true, then it's ok to interpret the scripture as it is written on the page. If the bible says something that science confirms, the preacher will stand up and proudly and loudly say "SCIENCE HAS CONFIRMED SCRIPTURE X...." therefore the bible is right....see it says it right there in black and white and science has confirmed it!!!

      But when the bible says something that makes god seem evil or it says something that science debunks, then interpreting the bible as it is written on the page is "taking it out of context". And when science debunks something written in the bible, it's ok to disregard science.

      2 SAMUEL 7:28
      28"Now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are truth

      If I use that verse as evidence that god always speaks truth, no one will tell me that I'm taking it out of context. But if I use this verse to show that god lies, at least sometimes, then I'm taking it out of context. Even though, god is boasting and admitting to being the source of deception in this passage. But someone would shout "OUT OF CONTEXT"!!!!!!!!!

      Ezikiel 14:9
      And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel

      Watch this hilarious video on context

    10. Yup. 1 billion Muslims would disagree. Yup. I’m (along with BILLIONS of others) say I’m right they are wrong. Your numbers game mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You study to compare the two. I already have.

      If it was a voice in his head then there is no issue with God. You can’t present a two sided conflicting argument. Yup the God who never changes told Abraham to sacrifice his son.

      Nope science can not debunk a GOOD GOD, nor His written word. Science is mere natural observation by lying sinful limited man. The God of the Bible is not natural, but SUPERNATURAL and He IS NOT limited by any law of nature. Thus if he want to part the RED Sea, He is powerful enough to do so. If he wants to CREATE something from nothing, all He got to do is speak it into existence.

      Those two verses you listed are easy to UNDERSTAND. I'm not going to waste my time here explaining (IN CONTEXT) to you.

      The VIDEO is about as RANTING as reading you say "if the Bible say something, and the preacher say something , they oppose, then the evidence say God is GOOD and if he is good you Christians say he is not good...yada yada yada nonsense

      Do like Rev said. TURN YOURSELF in!

    11. So your belief in god is unfalsifiable if it cannot be observed by science?

      What's the difference between a nonexistent god and a god that exists but is invisible, undetectable and has no observable effect on the real world?

      You don't get to say that god answers prayers and heals people, but you can't detect it. If that's the case, if no one can detect it, then you're just pulling things out of thin air when you say god heals people or answers prayers.

      It's amazing that Christians hold other religions gods to such high standards but hold their own god to such low standards. If I prayed to Baal, Vishnu, Allah or any other god and nothing happened, if it produced no observable effect on the real world, that would automatically be evidence to the Christian that those other gods are false.

      I wouldn't get to say that it wasn't Allah's will or that Vishnu isn't our magic genie or that Baal has something better for us. No Christian would accept those apologetics for any other god. Those apologetics exist for the sole purpose of making it appear that your god is different from all those other gods.

      If you pray to Zeus or to Jehovah, you're going to get the same result. Period. The only difference is that Zeus doesn't have any apologist, Jehovah does.

      And I do understand what Ezikiel 14:9 means
      And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel

      It means that god purposely deceives people into lying so that he can have an excuse to murder them. It's right there in black and white. God is admitting to being the source of deception and he tells us why. There is no context you can put that in which would mean that god IS NOT the source of deception. Your god admits to being a liar in his inerrant word. Or is he lying about being a liar??

      You can't debunk anything I'm I lying about what the bible is saying? Do christians not deny science when it disagrees with the bible but embrace science when it agrees with the bible? Do christians not scream "out of context" when the bible paints god in a bad light or says something false?

    12. So your PEDOPHILIA can't be denied or decried by you??? That's the ONLY thing you can address in this forum with any respect. You can't talk about God and his word while you damaging and killing young folk and families and not seeking to repair the breech...You sound STUPID!!!! That's just the way that any rational person would view it...

      Your GARBAGE has long been overturned. Those stale arguments have been long addressed historically and I have personally addressed that sort of garbage on an atheist web sites...the whole idea of scientism as you apply it is philosophically bankrupt and unsupportable...Just in case you didn't know BRAINIAC, there are many things that exist that are no falsifiable, or empirical in nature, including logic, mind, emotions, memories, and a whole host of other things. Empiricism is a dinosaur of the renaissance. Just in case you didn't know, "Mr. Later Train" people have gained enlightenment and left that mess on the garbage heap of nothingness.

      And you don't know what scripture means to any degree...a person in such perversion or DECEIVING us to be such person are equally as ill and BLIND.

    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    14. You keep asking these silly and rhetorical questions ie. "What's the difference between a nonexistent god and a god that exists but is invisible, undetectable and has no observable effect on the real world? AGAIN there is no such thing as a “nonexistent god” or a “god who is invisible, undetectable and has no observable effect on the real world”.
      YOUR statement about answering prayer is in disarray. There are many incidences recorded, the God of the Bible answered prayers. People today say the same. He admonished us "Pray without ceasing, for this is the will of God".

      Christians don't hold to other religion's GOD. AGAIN There is NO "other religion’s GOD".

      As for the passage in Ezekiel - You say the LORD deceives people. I say HE PERMITTED the prophet of his own choosing to error, and thus will judge him because of the act the prophet CHOSE. "I Jehovah have suffered him to be deceived". The LORD tempts no man to do evil.

      Christians don't deny SCIENCE. Christians (as anyone should) deny evidence that are false and called "Science".

      I'm beginning to believe what REV say about you is TRUE that YOU ARE SILLY!

    15. YOU SAID:Christians don't deny SCIENCE

      ME: LOL.....When I was in church, I was taught that the soul is responsible for emotions, personality, memory, free will etc...Neuroscience has shown that those are all functions of the physical brain without an invisible, undetectable soul being needed to explain anything. What will Christians do with this, just ignore it or say science is wrong without offering any evidence that their even is a soul, much less what it does.

      In fact, if a soul is what controls personality, then why can damage to the physical brain change someone's personality? Why can a brain disease like Alzheimer's cause someone to lose their memory if there is a soul and it is responsible for a person's memory? These questions have easy answers if we assume that there is only a physical brain and no such thing as a soul. If we insert an invisible, undetectable soul that is responsible for such, then nothing makes sense.

      YOU: AGAIN there is no such thing as a “nonexistent god” or a “god who is invisible, undetectable and has no observable effect on the real world”.

      ME: Prove it. What has your god done that can be detected in the real world? How does your god manifest? And if your god manifests and effects the real world, then why can't he or his actions be observed?

      YOU: There are many incidences recorded, the God of the Bible answered prayers

      ME: This is a baseless claim until you can present evidence of such. Other religions claim that their god answers their prayers too and they have just as much evidence as you have....their own personal belief.

      YOU: Christians don't hold to other religion's GOD

      ME: Other religions don't hold to the Christian god....of course, according to you, every other religion is wrong but according to other religions, you're wrong. You believing something doesn't make it factual.

      YOU: AGAIN There is NO "other religion’s GOD".

      ME: How do you know that? How do you know Zeus isn't real? Or any other god isn't real? I can tell you how I know that no one's god is real.....can you do the same?

      YOU: As for the passage in Ezekiel - You say the LORD deceives people. I say HE PERMITTED the prophet of his own choosing to error

      ME: I don't say the Lord deceives people, the Lord says the Lord deceives people in his supposedly inerrant word. Look, it's right here, Ezekiel 14:9
      And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

      So if you say something different, then you'd be wrong if you believe this is inerrant. Or perhaps you're correct, which would mean that the bible contains errors.

      YOU: The LORD tempts no man to do evil.

      ME: Well he did in Ezekiel 14:9 and if he says he doesn't somewhere else in the bible then that's a clear contradiction. God is lying or mistakened at some point

      And if we can't even measure or detect a soul, how do we know we have just 1? How do we know that we don't have 1.2 trillion souls if there's nothing or no method by which we can measure such? And I'm not trying to be funny, I'm asking serious questions here?

    16. I said “Christians don't deny SCIENCE, Christians (as anyone should) deny evidence that are false and called "Science".

      What Christians do with “neuroscience” and the soul is they look at both objectively. Christians look at neuroscience like they do all science, and note the truth about neuroscience, that it is nothing new when it theorizes we are influenced by what’s goes on in the brain. All neuroscience does is add further information of that sort. That’s IT! Neuroscience does not show a person acting on a desire, or making a choice to do good or to do evil.

      However, the BIBLE states with no qualification or question, the soul that ”sinneth” shall die. There is no amount of neuro-scientific evidence that shows there is no SOUL. When it comes to any science, Christians note most scientists when theorizing, it's always a matter of trying to put the best interpretation on what they observe, and sometimes their interpretation does not always demonstrate the truth, Neuroscience is NO DIFFERENT. YOU have more than one school of thoughts the many unknown factors of the BRAIN!

      It’s plain as day the first book of the BIBLE “And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” A living being with a will and ability to make choices (good or bad), personhood, etc. SORRY I go with the BIBLE over NEUROSCIENCE any day, no matter how you or any may man may intellectualize.

      What has my God done? He created the whole darn THING! The WORD of God which is TRUE, says He existed in the beginning, His is invisible, man can know Him through CREATION, through their Conscience and Through HIS SON.

      You keep talking about other religion and their GOD. Again there is ONLY ONE GOD and He is the GOD of the Bible! Doesn’t matter other religions don't hold to the CHRISTIAN GOD. This straw man means NOTHING! I'm not going to give you comparison of each all the RELIGIOUS GODS of this WORLD. You can study that on YOUR OWN as opposed to wasting a lot of your time trying to DISPROVE ONE GOD. That's INSANE. AGAIN, God created all man Christians and non-Christians with a SOUL. They all are cognitive being and can choose to BELIEVE or NOT!

      No contradiction the passage in EZEKIEL and any other verse. If the prophet is deceived, he would be as the tons of people mentioned (Isrealites and sojourners alike) in the same passage, who choose to "set up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face".

      And if you want to be technical, the verse did not say the prophet was deceived, and it was the LORD who covered him with deception. It says as you quoted so adamantly “And IF ((big two letter WORD) the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.” This verse does not say per say as you put it the LORD deceived anyone.

      As a matter of fact the prophet who spoke these things WAS NOT DECEIVED!

    17. So you admit that you'll deny science if it conflicts with the bible, no matter how much evidence the science has to back it up, got it!

      You believe that the christian god is real. What you believe or don't believe doesn't make it a fact. Just because you believe in the christian god doesn't mean that the god is true. And that goes for anything anyone believes. Just because you, me or anyone else believes something doesn't make it true. Other people believe in their religions just as strongly. You just repeating that you're right doesn't make it so.

      Now, how do we go about determining which one of you are right and which one of you are wrong?

      You say that souls exist, well give evidence and if your evidence is the bible, why should we take the bible as accurate?

      What does a soul do?

      How can we detect a soul?

      Where in the body is a soul located?

      And yes, Ezekiel 14:9 says
      And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

      The Lord is clearly, in no uncertain terms saying that he deceives a prophet if in fact the prophet does end up deceived. You cannot possibly look at this passage and interpret it as meaning exactly what it says on the page. If you interpret it as anything else, it means that the passage is wrong or god was lying about being deceitful.

      What do you mean "the lord has not deceived anyone"??? It's right there "I THE LORD HAVE DECEIVED THAT PROPHET"!!! Own your own book, why can't you own what it says???

      And what about these where god lies or causes someone to believe a lie which is just as bad

      1 Kings 22:23
      Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

      2 Chronicles 18:22
      Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

      Jeremiah 4:10
      Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul.

      Jeremiah 20:7
      O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.

      2 Thessalonians 2:11
      And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

      God either lying or lying by proxy. You cannot possibly say that if someone interprets all of those verses as written on the page that they are "taking it out of context".

      You like your god, are being dishonest when you try to make those verses say something else other than what they plainly say on the page. In direct disobedience to something else your god unambiguously says:

      Revelation 22:18-19 King James Version (KJV)
      18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

      19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

      You are unambiguously commanded not to add or subtract anything from this book which is what you are doing when you try to conjure up something that is in direct contradiction to what is printed on the page.

    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    19. I’m only going to address this as brief as possible, and will look at ONLY one of the verses you listed hopefully in CONTEXT. For the I King 22:23 passage –

      We have two kings (Ahab and Jehoshaphat) agreeing to go to war against Syria.
      Ahab inquired of about 400 prophets should they go in Battle and these prophets said “Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the king's hand.

      - Obvious these prophets lied (having a lying Spirit put on them) because Ahab was killed in the battle, and the land was not delivered unto them.

      Jehoshaphat asked, “Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him?”
      Notice he said “A PROPHET of the LORD”.

      Ahab responded, “There is yet one man, Micaiah…but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me.
      When Micaiah was summoned, and the messenger encouraged him to speak as the other prophets, Ahab inquired whether he should go into battle, and Micaiah mockingly said “Go”.

      Micaiah truthfully told Ahab what the LORD showed him – he saw the LORD sitting on his throne. THE LORD asked WHO SHALL PERSUADE Ahab that he SHALL FALL…


      - These 400 prophets had a lying SPIRITS as the LORD showed Micaiah.

      So when Vs 23 in particular stated “the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets”, HE permitted them to lie, more than 400 prophet because they made a choice to tell AHAB (a cruel and wicked king) what Ahab wanted to hear.

      All the other verses you mentioned in this LIGHT follows along the same thought. CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!

      About the soul, you can choose to believe or not believe. The Christian faith teaches the TRUTH, that man is both material and immaterial. No matter what you inject about neuroscience or any other science, no theory devised by the observation will trump Scriptures. As for neuroscience, these professionals have never proven the brain generates the intangible mind. The brain is simply an organ like any other organ ie the liver and stomach and, though doctors can do all kinds of tricks to apply electrode to parts of the brain to enable a person to so things involuntarily and even “cause” memory, he could never cause him to act or stimulate the person’s will.

      About the soul, the immaterial part of man, the Bible (which is accurate) says –

      Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

      Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name.

      Deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.

      - And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

      And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

      I know I said ONE VERSE, But another look at one of your OTHER verses -

      Jeremiah 20:7 - O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived; You have overcome me and prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all day long; Everyone mocks me.

      The word for “deceived” is "pittithani" meaning ”persuaded”. It was the LORD who persuaded Jeremiah to declare His message, and when Jeremiah preached the LORD’s message to His people, they did not ACCEPT it, but rather treated him with cruelty as a result.

      The first two verse of the Chapter explained that so simply –

      Now Pashur the son of Immer the priest, who was also chief governor in the house of the LORD, heard that Jeremiah prophesied these things.
      THEN PASHUR SMOTE JEREMIAH THE PROPHET, and put him in the stocks that were in the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house of the LORD.

      Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH.


  4. Robert,

    While I am at it, I wanted to say something to you as well...Now, I call you names out of jest. R Silly, R. Stupid and whatever else...Now, NONE of that makes you that and I certainly don't take it as if you are dumb (you are silly) but certainly not dumb in any way.

    So I want to apologize to you for making fun and even being abrasive...

    Y'u-know, in life, we do the best we can to understand and comprehend the twists and turns in the road. None of us escape the test and the strain that lie places upon us. We do good to find the door at times and getting out of bed can be a chore at certain points in life...We ALL experience that and at times the ONLY thing that hods us in the foundation that we have.

    Now, at times, we question even that and I think those questions are fair. The what and the why of life is a lifelong pursuit and people only find us at the particular doorway we are in at the time that we intersect with them.

    I guess I am saying that I am glad that we intersected even if for this time over this and other like topics. That intersection is for a reason, and that reason even encompasses me...I believe that the benefits and blessings o lie work both ways...One such as myself may "think" that we have a "blessing to give" when God is preparing us to actually "receive" a blessing.

    In this conversation I realize everybody is dealing with something and that something is important, whether we believe it or not, to God.

    So please excuse me for making jest and being silly myself as you have presented some good questions and even some things that more than a few folk have questions over. I don;t claim to have all the answers, but I do know I have some good ones worth considering. I may not be able to solve the world's problems, but at least we can discuss some problems if not one at a time....

    So Mr. Robert Sylvester Kelly, thank you for entertaining me and I would hope that you also will continue to read and comment and tell the world what you think...and if the world won't listen, I will even if painfully and you will still get my "pithy" commentary in return to help break through the darkness that we BOTH share at times in our lives...

    So thanks, nice to meet ya and if you're not really R. Kelly, that's OK, this goes for you too...everybody is somebody around here!!!


    1. YOU SAID:
      Robert said: "God approves rape. How about you show me a specific bible verse that unambiguously forbids rape"

      Deuteronomy 22:25-27 ~ 25-But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26-But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27-For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

      I would say that gives a pretty good idea of what God thinks about rapists and the act itself. If death is a result of the act, do ya "think" that may be a specific condemnation of the act???


      You and I both know that since the woman was considered property of the man, then that's why the death penalty was to be carried out. And what about the part of the verse where if the girl is single, the man has to pay the dad the bride price and she's forced to marry him. Under those circumstances, the fact that he's in turn forced to provide for her is only fair. But she's still forced into marriage if she's single and raped.

      Also, what about the part if she didn't cry out loud enough? Well guess what? She's also to be put to death, but let's leave that out, right?

      And since when is an all powerful god bound by customs? It's mighty funny that god was somehow hamstrung by the customs of that day, yet for some reason, he can circumvent the customs of the 21st century. For example, abortion is a custom of the modern day west. Yet I've never heard anyone say that god approves or sanctions it because customs. Yet god sanctioned and approved slavery back then because customs?

    2. Well, the "challenge" was met...You didn't ask to review the other verses and or their context...So you got what you wanted...did you want something else?

      So far as abortion and your assertions, baby killing has only been law since 1972. So one can hardly say that it is a "custom" of the West. It is something that people do. I see it like many do as a deepening of the level of sin in the world. GOd doesn't approve of something because it is a custom. He didn't approve of salvery either as I have PROVEN...

      Here is what we see:

      GOd says rapist is to be put to death for rape

      R Silly (and I'm gonna still call you that) says God approves of rape

      OK, now the punishment of DEATH equals God's APPROVAL????

      I don't know how that works but THANK GOD you're not a judge!!!!!

    3. No. The challenge was not met because you purposely left out the other verses which spelled out the conditions. You left out the part that it only applied to a married or engaged woman and that it didn't apply to single women. And that was because it was considered a crime against the husband. And the woman was also to be killed if she didn't cry out loud enough. The best you can say is that god doesn't approve of the rape of a woman married to a Hebrew man. That's the best you can say.

      What does equal approval is requiring the single girl marry the man who raped her once he paid the "bride price". Also when Hebrew soldiers are allowed to take captured women into forced marriages granting they followed a ritual provided by god (unless god specifically gave orders to "kill everyone" and we both know that if the girl wasn't given a choice into being forced into a marriage she likely wasn't given a choice when it came to anything sexual, there's nothing remotely implying she had a choice in anything). Or when god threatens to have wives raped and arrows cut young men to ribbons as a penalty for disobedience.

      Look, you can't really believe that a god who orders murder and genocide, approves slavery wouldn't approve or at least be indifferent to rape. In fact, it would fit right in with his character. I mean, here's a god who purposely hardened the Pharoah's heart so he could have an excuse to kill all of the firstborn children (and animals) of Egypt. And it was a flimsy excuse because they had nothing to do with anything. Should any god kill all the firstborn of America because of something President Trump does? Should any god kill all of the firstborn children of Illinois because of something Bruce Rauner does?

      A god who'd purposely create a situation so he could use it as a cover for mass slaughter is a god I could reasonably expect to approve of rape.

    4. The challenge was met R said this SPECIFICALLY: "How about you show me a specific bible verse that unambiguously forbids rape"

      I showed you a verse where the penalty for the rapist was I said, that pretty much settles it. THEN you change the argument and state: "The challenge was not met because you purposely left out the other verses which spelled out the conditions."

      ONLY there were no conditions to that verse and you asked for one specifically. Now, you may know studio work but you have a hard time with logical reasoning skills I see.

      NOW you make a different assertion. You say:" You left out the part that it only applied to a married or engaged woman and that it didn't apply to single women."

      You just asked for a verse, with no qualifiers (aside from the fact that you don;t understand the text)

      And you further state: "And that was because it was considered a crime against the husband. And the woman was also to be killed if she didn't cry out loud enough."

      Once again you interpret an ancient practice with a modern day moral value. You fall into an anachronism thinking that the phrase "because she cried not, being in the city;"Deut. 22:24b means that this is saying because she "didn't cry out loud enough"

      This has nothing to do with how loud she cried, it has to do with her consent and complacency by silence. It was INTERPRETED that a woman silent in this sort of even would have been one who consented to the act. Sorry ancient Hebrew doesn't translate well enough for you, but it would literally translate as "because after the act she does not cry" which would also be plead or tell. One who did not plead or tell anyone, especially being "in the city" where she could get and receive help would be considered one who was complicit.

      Then you say: "The best you can say is that god doesn't approve of the rape of a woman married to a Hebrew man. That's the best you can say

      Now the previous verse, v.23 is dealing with a single women. The clear understanding here is that it is speaking of a single women willing to fornicate. V. 29 deals with a single women that is unwilling to fornicate. Once again, you see this as a man just seeing a woman and forcing her to have sex and then he pays the father like she is a prostitute...That's your warped mind or whoever it is that has planted this garbage, because that is not context...

      This man and woman fall into premarital infidelity. The evidence for that is in v. 29 where is says: "and THEY be found" Indicating that this was a RELATIONSHIP that both entered into, even if the sex act was initiated by him.

      He then must HONOR the family by paying a dowry as he normally would have had he done right, BUT because he did what he did prior to betrothal or marriage, the latter part of that verse says, "he may not put her away all his days" Which basically means that since she is NOT his concubine, she has RIGHTS as a WIFE and he CANNOT divorce her for any reason at all.

      So he dishonors the family by have premature sex with a virgin you lady. Ex. 22:16-17 is EXACTLY what Deut.22"29 is talking about. Here is the Exodus verses:

      "16- And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
      17-If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."

      Now do you see the part that says, "If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him"? This is the exact situation in Deut. 22:29. Obviously it is referencing a father who is in refusal or is willing to deny the hand of marriage to a person who has violated both his home and his daughter.

    5. So, if you want to continue to believe that this is talking about a rapist (which it is not)...let's look at what actually happens...

      1- The rapist (as you claim) has to marry the woman he has violated
      2- The woman defiled has rights as a wife
      3- The rapist (as you claim) cannot ever divorce her
      4- The rapist (as you claim) has to pay money to the family as an act of restitution according to law.

      Like I said, that is not descriptive of a rapist, but in any event, the VICTIM has perpetual rights and there is restitution. Sounds like no penalty to me eehhhh????

      MAN you have got to be on another planet with your assertions...Too much "Honey" on your brain got you SICK!!!!

      Speaking of that, have you cleaned out your house yet? Those excuses that "they want to stay" and that they "are grown and can make their own decisions" is pathetic!!! I'm thinking that you are trying to find something that may either justify your actions or make you feel better about the whole thing, but I don't think you can find any such comfort.

      I am wondering does it have to do with this article, or are you sincerely seeking truth: Let's get real with this one Sylvester:

    6. See Sylvester, I am CONFIDENT about my God that he is fair, righteous and just and that ALL sin and ALL sinner will be judged, no matter how many records they have sold or how much money that "claim" to have...

      Are you as "confident" about your future as I am bout the righteous judgement of God? See, if all unrighteousness is judged, that means that even things people thought they were grown enough to do will be brought before the heavenly council and the wrong will be made right in front of the very people who have been wronged.

      If not Hitler, Pol Pot, and a host of other murders, pedophiles and rapists will get away with their acts and inhumane deeds...but I am CONFIDENT that will not be the case...

      Do you have the confidence I have in this Sylvester? Or are you simply trying to justify your perversions?

      Tell me that "Mr. I am more moral than God"...If you are, then we are ALL in trouble, but somehow, I simply don't think so!

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. God has killed more than Hitler and Pol Pot combined. If god were an actual person, he'd be a war criminal that'd make Hitler and Pol Pot look like rank amateurs. In the bible, Satan only kills 10 people and that's with god's permission!!! God kills people with plagues, snakes, lions, bears, induces people to lie so he can have an excuse to kill them, purposely "hardens Pharoah's heart" so he can kill all of Egypt's first born, demands that animals be mass slaughtered and the blood sprinkled around so he can be happy, approves of and commands various killings for the most asinine and absurd of "offenses". Not to mention that god plans to torture the majority of mankind by burning them alive forever.

      And the nice, soft spoken, always tried to help everyone, never said a bad word, always donated to charity, volunteered at the orphanage, visited the sick and widowed ATHEIST will be burned alive in gods torture chamber too, probably right next to Hitler. So let's not pretend that it'some righteous punishment that only the most wicked of people will get.

    9. R. Silly,

      See this is what happens when you "think" you are bigger than God and life. It seems the walls are caving in on all that sin and degradation...

      Don't worry, you'll certainly be front line here too...SMH!!!!

  5. Sylvester,

    She said: “R. Kelly is the sweetest person you will ever want to meet,” McGee said. “But Robert is the devil.”

    Is this to be believed? I can't accuse you because I don't know you, but GOD SPEAKS to his people and when he speaks, I'll know...I just find it interesting that you are attempting to claim that God is immoral based on some of the very things that you are accused of doing.

    That's simply what THEY are saying...I for one would like to know...Last I remember, you were hanging out with Kirk Franklin who also has a sorted history of perversion as well...Did you do a bible study with him to get so confused on sexuality and perversion, or are you void of understanding or trying to justify your actions on your own???

    I am interested in this...Since we KNOW that God doesn't justify rape, manipulation, slavery, bondage or even S&M that treats people like property as are the "accusation(S)" against you, I would like to know why you feel that God is so weak and you are so strong....

    I think either you are being mislead by someone who is supposed to be in church but is a perverted undercover demon, or that you have been seduced by the devil himself into believing that you are above it all and are untouchable...

    I mean, it kind of dawned on me...the bible questions have been addressed but you are still talking and I am looking at what you are talking about attempting to assert and it sounds strange to me...

    1. The verse clearly states this:
      Deuteronomy 22:28–29

      28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

      Seizes her. Violated her. Doesn't sound consensual to me.

      Tell me this:

      If you read that in any other holy book, the long winded explanation that you gave me, would you buy it if someone else told it to you? So if you wouldn't buy your own explanation if someone else told it to you, then it's not a convincing explanation. And it still doesn't explain why god allowed girls captured in battle to become the forced wives of Israelite soldiers (I know, just like there's an app for that, there's an excuse for this)

      Have ye saved the women alive:

      And Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18

      Few things here:
      1. Moses (with gods approval) orders the cold blooded execution of every man, boy and non virgin woman.
      2. Moses (with gods approval) tells them they can keep the virgin girls alive "for yourselves". Sounds like a forced marriage to me. And please, don't say this wasn't rape, especially since it came right after a mass murder. God's ok with genocide and mass murder, but somehow he thinks rape is a no no? And how did they separate the virgins and non virgins, that would have had to include what can arguably be sexual assault under modern definiton?

    2. Now, let's do this R. Silly...

      One thing you do is remain silent and say thing's like "it wasn't me" in effort to wait out your critics.

      If you ADMIT right here on this blog that you have seduced, molest or have seduced and molested under aged girls, If you confess that it really was you personally in the video that was presented at the trial that you subsequently had dismissed, in which you peed on and molested a young lady known to you as your "god-daughter" at the time, and that you are or have recently (within the last 10 years) seduced and held other young ladies whether against their will or not, after manipulating their minds, using them as sexually missive pawns, and that you do have sexual encounters with them video-taped from time to time and share said videos with your perverted friends, and that you overwhelm the young ladies and control them so that they will not and cannot cry out to family and friends for help without threat of punishment and or severe penalty either done by you or those in your association or employment, I'll say, against all evidence to the contrary, that God approves of sexual assault, rape and slavery...

      Now, I understand how to get proof of identity by obtaining IP address info and verification...I therefore will as a part of this agreement, demand proof of your identity and will seek such to confirm this is the R& B artist otherwise known as R Kelly aka: Robert Sylvester Kelly dob: 01/08/1967.

      As a part of this agreement, there will be no hiding, evading, delaying or non-admission of your confession here, and such confession shall not be confined for use in this blog and shall be used for whatever purpose that any person shall deem fit...

      How about it? DEAL or NO DEAL?

    3. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;"

      The word translated "lay hold" or "seize" is "tapas" mean take/catches, and is a weaker verb than "forces" in vs 25. Doesn't matter what it sounds like to you. Like REV explained to you before, Exodus 22:16-17 is the backdrop to this scenario. He must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.

    4. REV...

      LIKE "DEAL of NO DEAL".

      YOU are Hilarious!

      I live in your state.

      I gotta come come by your church the next time I'm close by.

      He let me ask you a question as a COGIC pastor and your knowledge of SCRIPTURES?

      What you thing about COGIC teaching on SALVATION, that you one can be saved first, and then get the HOLY GHOST later on one he tarry and speak in tongue? I had a friend of mine that was "saved" for years and never spoke in tongues. He never believed he had the Holy Ghost but went to the ALTAR and tried but never broke through.

    5. GloryandHonor,

      Thanks and I appreciate the encouragement.

      So far as the doctrine of the "second blessing" I would hold that Holy Ghost baptismal experience is an event subsequent, and on occasion, simultaneous with salvation. So to COGIC doctrine I am blue line on that. However the way I teach and apply that is different than many that I have heard on the issue as I will explain. The late OT Jones Sr. did not have the same view as Mason on this and that was another part of why he did not lead contently for the short time he was leading Bishop.

      So far as a believer who has never spoken, I think that is common, and I would not and do not make it an issue of class, heart, or living, as in "living in sin" is what is keeping a person from that experience. In some cases that may be the case, but not necessarily and not out of pocket. Some saved folk have never been led to that plateau as a matter of their walk of faith and deepening relationship. When you have a church that is more interested in "activities" than personal spiritual growth of the believer, the experience can be easily misunderstood and a believer's desire and preparation for the experience under-valued. ie: Folk don't know what to have faith for and why if they are consistently too busy to learn and the teaching is poor, as I have seen in many pentecostal circles.

      A person is as saved and holy as they are going to be at salvation and receives the Spirit of the Lord by spiritual regeneration which is a work of the Holy Ghost, however the experience is the unique empowerment for service and as stated is associated with ongoing deepening of the relationship of the believer and is another dimension and expansion of what they have already received.

      So far as "tarry service", I think receiving God in general is an act of faith, rather than an act of works as we have been arguing in this thread. Tarry service was designed more for folk to get ready for God. in other words, the word "tarry" is associated with "waiting" but in essence God is waiting on the people as opposed to the people waiting on him. He is there by faith ready to be received.

      I would look at Acts 8:14-17 and say that the people certainly were saved, because they "received the word of God"(v.14) I mean a sinner doesn't do that, and in this case were already baptized or identified with the Church. So they are clearly believers or saved folk. But Peter and John "laid their hands on them"(v.17) and they "received the Holy Ghost"(v.17)

      Now I know the reformed folk argue that those were "sign gifts" and are not essential today and I simply as when did they cease and when did the attack of the church become less so that we don't need a complete arsenal of tools to fight the devil and to advance in our personal relationship with Christ?

      So I am definitely Pentecostal, but not excluding folk that are saved from serving the Lord, but including them so that they will have a fruitful understanding and deepening relationship with Christ...UNFORTUNATELY, not all folk want that...they want to turn the music up loud, move real fast like atoms and an experience but still live foul from time to time...Like the folk getting baptized for salvation...get in the pool with a form of godliness and come up with a form of godliness...Too many people look to an "event" to make them better or more saved, when walking with Christ is a daily walk and we should seek him and not the event. So that brother would have never been excluded and or pressured that he "needs to speak in tongues" in order to "prove" either he's really saved or loves God more. That is discouraging and is an erroneous teaching.

      When God is ready he will do what he will with his vessels. We can only prepare them to receive the blessing with a fruitful understanding and with faith...

    6. I hear you REV…I really think teaching along this line is WAY MORE than NECESSARY, it bring UNDERSTANDING and CLARITY if nothing else.

      I had an older friend and mentor who never spoke in tongues. He was a GREAT Sunday School and YPWW teacher. He passed away in his 90’s, and I can honestly say, his Christian demeanor and his knowledge of Scriptures encouraged me to study to show myself approved. After this church went through several pastors, he was the main figure left who played vital roles throughout the history of the CHURCH. There were whispers that he should never be promoted because he didn’t have the Holy Ghost as evident by speaking in tongues – even after being a member of that small church for over 60 years. Eventually he became an Elder, and the Bishop of that Jurisdiction appointed him to be the Pastor. I’m not sure if any strings were pulled to accomplish this. Then there are cases where many “live in known sin” spoke in tongues as evidence of the Holy Ghost, and continue to speak in tongues. When it comes to the process of being saved, there seems to be disjoints at times. Some things are understood. Other things not so much. My personal belief is when it comes to SALVATION, there should be no doubt. But I note even though out the history of the Church, many doctrines and ideas have prevailed. Thanks for taking the time to address my concern. Peace!

  6. Sylvester,

    Maybe my curiosity just got the best of me, but why was Honolulu cancelled? Then, what did you do at UNO Lakefront Arena in NO? Do you have a sexual addiction? Is that what Kirk and you hooked up to discuss? The people seem to think so...your top 2 reviews said they would never come back because you were basically a pervert...What is up with that???

    Like I said, I'm not accusing, I only want to know:

  7. Linda Mensch, Sylvester's attorney said this:

    “We can only wonder why folks would persist in defaming a great artist who loves his fans, works 24/7, and takes care of all of the people in his life,” Mensch wrote. “He works hard to become the best person and artist he can be. It is interesting that stories and tales debunked many years ago turn up when his goal is to stop the violence; put down the guns; and embrace peace and love. I suppose that is the price of fame. Like all of us, Mr. Kelly deserves a personal life. Please respect that.”

    I will admit, that when the case finally was tried in 2008 and was dismissed, that was something. On what grounds was it dismissed though? Here is an article that speaks about it:

    I'd still like to know...why you defending sexual abusers and trying to call the character of God into question?

    1. REV...your response are BIBLICAL and SPOT ON.

      LIKE "I showed you a verse where the penalty for the rapist was I said, that pretty much settles it. THEN you change the argument and state: "The challenge was not met because you purposely left out the other verses which spelled out the conditions.""

      LIKE "You just asked for a verse, with no qualifiers (aside from the fact that you don;t understand the text)"

      LIKE "Once again you interpret an ancient practice with a modern day moral value. You fall into an anachronism thinking that the phrase "because she cried not, being in the city;"Deut. 22:24b means that this is saying because she "didn't cry out loud enough"

      LIKE "This man and woman fall into premarital infidelity. The evidence for that is in v. 29 where is says: "and THEY be found" Indicating that this was a RELATIONSHIP that both entered into, even if the sex act was initiated by him. "

      The Deuteronomy passage distinguishes three scenarios 1) adultery between two consenting adults vs 23 2) forcible rape of an engaged woman vs 25 - "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die." 3) seduction of an engage woman vs 28. (CONSENSUAL SEX BY BOTH PEOPLE). SPLENDID you brought in the EXODUS passage to further explain.

    2. REV..YOU CRAZY..."I love it!"

      Like "I'd still like to know...why you defending sexual abusers and trying to call the character of God into question?"


    3. LOL...Yea, it dawned on me, Sylvester asking all these questions like he deep in thought on God's character and has such a flaming accusation against GOd and the bible, when for nearly 30 years he's been accused of pedophilia and perversion. Though he's never had a case rule against him, the secret settlements and nondisclosure agreements abound. So ANYBODY knows he's anything but "innocent"

      Then looking at some recent commentary, he and his crew have taken that perversion to the stage and obviously went way overboard in New Orleans. So we have a person who appears to have managed to use the system skillfully to hide indiscretions and crimes and perversions and lust even upon a "god child" and thinks he's like the invisible man...

      Then hangs out with some gospel people (Kirk Franklin) puts on a shirt and tie and "pretends" to be "changed" for a minute and in the process probably slept with and seduced more silly church girls than a little bit, all with the help of a so called gospel singer who confessed he was also addicted to porn and has slept with as many girls as he could to prove he wasn't gay...

      Then Sylvester, shows up trying to downgrade God, questions the women, as a pedophile would do, and "thinks" that I only interpret his mess in light of biblical discussions...I have written over 600 articles and most of them about the bible and culture and since the "me too" movement, the only articles that he has made himself known on are the ones regarding a sick and twisted perverted doctor sexually abusing children...

      Think is, like the lady said, I believe this guys is a genuinely nice guy, but he is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde. There is a split here that is not normal and money, fame and popularity has enabled him to perpetuate his behavior and hid his sins...

      This is EXACTLY why I am glad that JUDGEMENT and HELL exists...If there was no judgement, he like others would simply get by. There would be no reason for him or others who have allegedly done the same to change. However, judgement DOES exist and all of those who have been damaged, will be there to see him judged for his horrific sins...

      There is no baptism or former confession of faith that will save him and certainly no excuse or accusation that he will be able to raise against the Lord in that day. Parousia will be a great day for many and a terrible day for some...Then HELL, which is not intended for men to occupy will be occupied by unregenerate, unrepentant men, who thought they could shake a finger in God's face and thought that they were smarter than anyone else.

      So, I'd like to know, because although I may be wrong, I am looking at what he is against and it just doesn't add up to me...

      All freaks and perverts have a place in hell. And although I hope he's not one, I can't say that he is not with any confidence...

  8. WELL Said REV...

    Dont get no Plaines than THAT!

  9. R Silly,

    We ain't interested in NOTHING you have to say about the character of God until it is that you DEVELOP A CHARACTER AND TELL THE TRUTH!!!!

    If what is reported is true about you you are damaging families and lives of people every day and nothing you do can clean that up except for repentance. You can't possibly care about the community or people doing the garbage that is reported and what you have not tried to defend against...

    So sorry, until you grow a character you have no right to call God's character into question.

    Just the way it is...I guess one can't defend against the truth...

  10. Made me wonder why the "real" R Kelly would come to a blog to when talking about rape and sexual abuse. Well, this is the REAL R Kelly story regarding this are recorded by GQ Magazine. It seems that R Kelly has written a memoir that sort of reveals what may have happened to him along the way. GQ says this:

    "In the book, he describes a number of premature sexual experiences, including an approach by a trusted family friend, a man, who he says tried to persuade Kelly to masturbate him for money, which Kelly says he rebuffed. “It was a crazy weird experience,” he tells me. “But not a full-blown experience, because it didn't go down. Contact sexual—no. A visual—absolutely. A visual from him showing me his penis and all that stuff.” But he describes in his memoir how the full-on sexual abuse that lasted for several years (it was oral sex the first time, though he tells me it soon became intercourse) started one day when Kelly fell asleep in front of the TV and was awoken from “a crazy dream about Three's Company” to find a woman playing with him:

    I tried to push her away, but she wouldn't stop until she was finished. When she was, she said, “You better not say shit to no one or else you gonna get a terrible whupping.”

    The book says nothing about how this woman was connected to Kelly, other than implying that she was a regular presence in their home, but while we talk he refers to her as a relative. He doesn't say this as though he expects it to be any kind of revelation to me, more as though he assumes I already know it. I wonder if he even realizes she wasn't described like that in the book.

    “At first, I couldn't judge it,” he says to me, when I ask him if he realized at the time that a really bad thing was happening. “I remember it feeling weird. I remember feeling ashamed. I remember closing my eyes or keeping my hands over my eyes. I remember those things, but couldn't judge it one way or the other fully.”

    And did that change over time?
    “Over time, yeah. I remember actually, after a couple of years, looking forward to it sometimes. You know, acting like I didn't, but did.”

    How often would the abuse happen?
    “Oh wow. It became a regular thing. Every other day, every other week.”

    How many years did it go on for?
    “As far as I can remember, about [age] 7 or 8 to maybe 14, 15. Something like that.”

    Now, I understand why and how he seeks the innocence of these young is because his innocence was taken from him. He seems to be trying to replace it or go to a time through those young girls before he himself was victimized.

    However, the pedophile tale is true, a pedophile will perpetuate pedophilia and can produce over 100 victims in their lifetime.

  11. What do you think now about what they did?
    “I, well, definitely forgive them. As I'm older, I look at it and I know that it had to be not just about me and them, but them and somebody older than them when they were younger, and whatever happened to them when they were younger. I looked at it as if there was a sort of like, I don't know, a generational curse, so to speak, going down through the family. Not just started with her doing that to me.”

    Obviously you know that in the cold light of day what they were doing was a crime. Do you wish they had been held to account for that?
    “Back then, too young to judge. As I'm older, I've only learned to forgive it. Was it wrong? Absolutely. But it's a family member that I love so I would definitely say no to that one. To be honest, even if my mom, I saw her kill somebody, I'm not gonna say, ‘Well, yeah, she definitely should go to jail.’ It's just something I wouldn't do.”

    I believe a common reaction in such situations is to be angry about losing an innocence that shouldn't have been lost. Do you relate to that?
    “Absolutely, yes. It teaches you to definitely be sexual earlier than you should have, than you're supposed to. You know, no different than putting a loaded gun in a kid's hand—he gonna grow up being a shooter, probably. I think it affects you tremendously when that happens at an early age. To be more hornier. Your hormones are up more than they would normally be. Mine was.”

    And do you think that set you on a path that you kept on?
    “Yeah. In a lot of ways, absolutely. I think so.”

  12. Now, I thought that was a very interesting interview Robert and one that I plan to do a story on as well. I'll keep the heretic arguments separate from the issues of abuse etc, but I think your story is interesting.

    For those interested, the complete article and more answers to other questions can be found here:

    Now, ROBERT, if this is really you, I want you to send me a COPY of that book or that memoir that was referenced in the article.

    Send that to my attention at PO Box 6167 Peoria, IL. 61601...

    To prove that it is you that I and we have been talking to, I want it autographed. I want to confirm your signature. I'll figure that out, but I really want to examine the book. So if this is really Robert Sylvester Kelly, do that for me., we'll get back to the debate stuff, but I am interested in knowing more about your real story.



I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Thanks.