Walt Heyer explained that his efforts to live as a womanâalthough at times pleasurableâresulted in much pain and sadness.
He explained that he had enjoyed cross-dressing but the "delusional pursuit" escalated to surgery.
"I can see from my experience that transgenderism is fantasy motivated by strong feeling," Heyer said, adding that although Jackson may be regarded as a hero at present: "What will surface eight, 10 or even 30 years from now?"
"Promoting Avery's situation as a success story will hurt others who are struggling, because it advances the false idea that embracing transgenderism will solve the issues they face and heal the pain they feel," he said....
Just to clarify the peanut jokes about child rape! Is crude and disgusting in his remarks to others, consistently and it's gets on your nerves, the idiot is confronted? Stiff
As a 'newcomer' to the forum, you get upset that those who've posted for a bit and question who you are? Why not just answer the question and put away any/all doubt/suspicion? What are two or three of your previous monikers? Are you a Romanist? Do you defend any of the teachings of Rome?
Also, Now look who's bearing 'false witness, "Nor should you use him as an excuse for unrighteousness." Care to explain? It what way have I used stever as an excuse for unrighteousness - point me to my unrighteousness.
And finally, do you think it is not of Satan when a religion/church takes what God decrees and changes it?
"but in any event my answer was very plain and the opposite of evasive. It is my prerogative how I choose to answer you. You do not own the forum." really? Your answer was plain? Can you point me to your comment that states such? How is it asking questions imply that I 'own the forum'? Why not just answer and put away doubt/suspicion? Where did you give two or three prior monikers?
Here's what I found, "ladybug wrote: Also, you said you've used many, is 'stever of mt. zion' one of your monikers?No. Steve did not destroy his own argument earlier this week." - Does that imply you are not Steve R of Mt. Zion? What are you referring to in the latter half?
Does anybody here understand the difference between a Roman Catholic (in general) and a Jesuit (in particular)?
Does anyone here understand the difference between the Pope and the Black Pope? They are not one and the same.
SteveR comes on here and states plainly RCC dogma and is accused of being a Jesuit (not sure why when he is speaking plainly and openly confessing an RCC position).
I come on here and state plainly Protestant dogma and am accused of being a Romanist in disguise (i.e. acting Jesuitically).
This appears to say more about the commenters than their subjects.
ladybug wrote: This convo started with my asking you if you posted with other monikers. You evaded that by simply stating you have used many.
This convo did not start there, but in any event my answer was very plain and the opposite of evasive. It is my prerogative how I choose to answer you. You do not own the forum.
Actually, I asked you for clarification, and you still are being vague. That is your perogative. This convo started with my asking you if you posted with other monikers. You evaded that by simply stating you have used many. Why do you refuse to give examples of previous monikers?
As I stated to sister JA, it isn't wise to engage you because you may very well be a Romanist. Are you? Do you defend any of the teachings of Rome?
Also, Now look who's bearing 'false witness, "Nor should you use him as an excuse for unrighteousness." Care to explain?
And finally, do you think it is not of Satan when a religion/church takes what God decrees and changes it?
There is a huge difference between bearing false witness and misinterpreting a vague statement.
Yet again, there is a world of difference between an assertion and a proof.
My words "you are not wrong" would not be interpreted by any sober minded reader as "Your words appear to state you are in disagreement ..."
You are being contentious without a cause.
ladybug wrote: No 'bearing false witness', just stating what you implied....
Nonsense. If you cannot show your accusations from my words they are your false witness based upon your own private interpolations. You are not the arbiter of all things.
No 'bearing false witness', just stating what you implied....
1/27/17 1:15 PM Philadelphia
âą Posted 13 hours ago
"You are not wrong, but that's proof only of current doctrine and practice within the RCC. It is not a proof of its unbiblical nature nor of their invention ("devilish origin") of the practice."
Your words appear to state you are in disagreement with calling the RCC version of divorce devilish. You say it isn't proof, even though the Bible makes no case for any 'annulment'. If what a church/religion teaches cannot be supported by scripture, then what is it? What does the RCC teach? Doctrines of demons or bibilical truth? What are you really implying?
Why do you avoid the question concerning your moniker[s]? Why so evasive? What are you hiding?
Now look who's bearing 'false witness, "Nor should you use him as an excuse for unrighteousness." Care to explain?
Yes, I do care about a Jesuit troll coming here and pushing a godless agenda. If you don't, then why bother commenting on what I say?
I could not care less about SteveR's contributions to this forum and nor should you. Nor should you use him as an excuse for unrighteousness.
ladybug wrote: To Philadelphia, You state "How many questions do I have to answer before you answer just one? If plain answers that agree with you make me a Romanist in disguise (aka Jesuit), what would that make you?" You have twisted my question beyond it's intent.
Absolutely I pushed your question beyond your intent but I have not twisted it. Are you the arbiter of all things? Why should one rule apply to me and not to you? Do you own this forum?
I have given you several plain answers, but you still have not answered my first question to you.
ladybug wrote: especially in light of the fact that you claim Rome's overriding of God's word concerning marriage isn't devilish.
I say you are now bearing false witness. If not, prove it from a direct quotation of my words.
You state "How many questions do I have to answer before you answer just one? If plain answers that agree with you make me a Romanist in disguise (aka Jesuit), what would that make you?"
You have twisted my question beyond it's intent. First of all, I never said for certain you were a Romanist. I did say it is possible, your being evasive makes it all the more suspicious. It was quite simple really; due to the fact that Steve R is attacking any and all who expose Rome for what it is, I don't think it unfair to question a newcomer to the forum, especially in light of the fact that you claim Rome's overriding of God's word concerning marriage isn't devilish. Doctrines of demons are taught by those who are against God and His truth, that would include anything that comes out of Rome.
Now, let's try this again, can you give us two or three of your previous most recent monikers, and can you plainly answer if 'stever of mt. zion' is you?
Christopher, remember this, 'stever' came here claiming to uphold to a reformed view, and stating he didn't agree with everything from Rome, so don't be fooled by someone who makes such claims. Just a word of advice brother....
JESUIT Clergy Abuse News . . German Jesuit report shows years of sexual abuse cover-up / May 27, 2010 Source: REUTERS
A Jesuit investigation has cited 205 allegations of sexual abuse against priests at its schools in Germany, revealing decades of systematic abuse and attempts of a cover-up by the prestigious Roman Catholic order. The new allegations threaten to further undermine the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, already accused of hushing up hundreds of sexual and physical abuse allegations in Church-run schools that have come to light recently. âIn the name of the order, I acknowledge with shame and guilt our failure,â Father Stefan Dartmann, Germanyâs leading Jesuit official, said in a statement. âI ask for forgiveness.â The report also cited a further 50 allegations of abuse relating to other, mostly Catholic institutions. The allegations by predominantly male victims in the Jesuit investigation focus on 12 priests, six of whom are now deceased, from several schools and youth facilities in Germany. Solitary victims cited a further 32 church figures.
I used to think I understood your humour Steve, you lost me while making jokes about pell and his involvement in child rape. You need a good clip. Bang done
How a valid, legal, consummated marriage that lasted nearly two decadesâwith children, who thus must be considered illegitimateâcan be annulled by the church staggers the mind & the moral imagination. Surely that practice is worse than divorce, bad as that is, since divorce at least faces up to what the breaking of a marriage is &does not cover it up with a pious facade. (In effect, annulments are divorces granted by the church, even as it (commendably) teaches against divorce! Protestant churches may be too tolerant of divorces, but at least they donât grant them!)
"The third Ms. Gingrich is a Catholic, and in 2002, Mr. Gingrich asked the Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta to annul his second marriage on the ground that the former Ms. Ginther had been previously married. âWe were married 19 years, and now he wants to say it didnât exist,â she told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution."
Newt Gingrich is on his third marriage, but the RCC which does not believe in divorce, granted him at least 1 &maybe 2 annulments! According to canon law,annulled marriages were never marriages at all...if there was no marriage-there was no adultery, no divorces, & Newt is a once-married paragon of family values.
A Must Watch Video: The Silence File Jesuit Abuse http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-silence/
FRONTLINE reveals a little-known chapter of the Catholic Church sex abuse story: decades of abuse of Native Americans by priests and other church workers in Alaska. In The Silence, FRONTLINE producer Tom Curran and reporter Mark Trahant examine the legacy of abuse by a number of men who worked for the Catholic Church along Alaska's far west coast in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They would leave behind a trail of hundreds of claims of abuse, making this one of the hardest hit regions in the country.
Source: Seattle Times / Article: NW Jesuits to pay $166 million to abuse victims / March 31, 2011 In one of the largest settlements nationwide in the Roman Catholic Church's sexual-abuse crisis, the Jesuits will pay $166.1 million to about 500 abuse victims â many of them Native Americans or Alaska Natives. The abuses spanned decades and states, from remote Alaskan villages to boarding schools on Northwest tribal lands. Hundreds of victims, most of them Native American or Alaska Natives, were sexually or physically abused as children by Jesuit priests or people the priests supervised.
JuneAnnette wrote: OK . . be sure to check out my last post. Many in the Catholic community are wise to the Jesuit pope . . 666
Rats! We had the whole world fooled until that last post. Our plans for world domination are quenched, but only for awhile. Wow, you win. Philadelphia, The Black Pope, Jesuit Troll HQ and I were just plain overmatched today {Tip of the Hat} CYA for now
Curse you though...I guess we will return to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and taking care of widows and orphans for now
Christopher000 wrote: Hi June, I can't tell if you're serious or not, but just in case, Dave and everyone would know I was joking. My dry humor leaves question marks at times for anyone not used to me. âș
OK . . be sure to check out my last post. Many in the Catholic community are wise to the Jesuit pope . . 666
See also:
Putting Pope Francis into Perspective originally published:Â Â October 31, 2014 UPDATED Â Â JANUARY 20, 2016 'Pope Francis' â A Chronological List of Quotes and Headlines
Hi June, I can't tell if you're serious or not, but just in case, Dave and everyone would know I was joking. My dry humor leaves question marks at times for anyone not used to me. âș
Now back to the Argentine president who clearly has the Jesuit pope's number . . 666 that is. In the face of compelling evidence many Catholics concur.
VIDEO: Pope Francis, False Prophet â Advancing Antichrist Watch False Prophet Pope Francis' crazed passion as he preaches on the virtues of globalization. See the New Word Order Pope be glorified by celebrities and mainstream media. Hear New Age Guru Oprah Winfrey sing the praises of False Francis. Witness the World's Vicar meet with corporate giants such as Google and Facebook. Google translate equated 'BERGOGLIO' to "Better World', while in computer code the name =666. ---- Watch the Video here: The Wild Voice â a Catholic Website /
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
by the romanists lunatic fringe.
