| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Randy ®
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:21 am Post subject: Re: # SEXUAL LIFE IN THE PARADISE ? # |
 |
|
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:45:25 -0500,
in article <geaegs$gum$1@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rr0fg45bls0efvahhb9o7e7mdlkgrju70k@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:01:14 -0500,
in article <ge6rdv$4co$1@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qmdcg4ps7u2roieojgnupkvmv5jhlfk82a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:36:51 -0500,
in article <ge4cl5$qgn$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
[Trim to point]
Even so, you still haven't produced a single verse, even from
what you do consider Scripture, that comes right out and
states that it is specifically legalists who are the beasts of
the field.
Yes, I did: JOHN'S USE OF SYMBOLISM IN REVELATION, UPHELD BY THE REST OF
THE
PROPHETS.
"And I saw a beast," meaning NATURAL, UNGODLY MAN;
"rise from the EARTH," meaning FROM AMONG THE SEMITES;
"having two horns," meaning having authority of TWO THINGS;
"of a lamb," meaning AS A SELF-DEFINED SAVIOR, which means the TWO
THINGS
that the beast has authority over are the TWO RELIGIOUS NATIONS of the
SEMITES, ISRAEL AND ISLAM;
"but spoke as a DRAGON," meaning HE WAS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH.
AND HOW DOES THIS "BEAST" COME BY THIS POWER?
ANSWER: BY ATTACHING HIMSELF TO ISRAEL AND ISLAM AT THE SAME TIME BY
RECOGNIZING ISLAM'S COMPETING CLAIM TO THE PROMISES OF ABRAHAM, EVEN
THOUGH
THE ARABS ARE OF THE REJECTED SONS WHILE THE ISRAELITES ARE OF THE
SELECTED
SONS. (But, in truth, NEITHER ONE OF THESE will be "Israelites," as God
still has His "Israel" hidden in the nations.)
THAT'S "LEGALISM," MORON.
That's not exegesis, that's your imagination.
You wish.
On the meaning of "beast:"
Ps 73:22 So foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a beast before thee.
Ec 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of
the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
All "animals" go to hell?
Jer 31:27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house
of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed
of
beast.
God commits "bestiality?'
On the meaning of "earth."
Ps 69:34 Let the heaven and earth praise him, the seas, and every thing
that
moveth therein.
The "earth" can praise?
Jer 46:8 Egypt riseth up like a flood, and his waters are moved like the
rivers; and he saith, I will go up, and will cover the earth; I will
destroy
the city and the inhabitants thereof.
Egypt thought it could conceivably cover the whole "planet?"
Eze 34:27 And the tree of the field shall yield her fruit, and the earth
shall yield her increase, and they shall be safe in their land, and shall
know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke, and
delivered them out of the hand of those that served themselves of them.
The earth has its own "lands?" The "earth" will know God is Lord? God will
deliver the "earth?"
Ho 2:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the
LORD,
I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth;
The "earth" can hear? And be heard?
Ho 2:22 And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and
they shall hear Jezreel.
Again, the "earth" can hear?
On the meaning of "horns."
Ps 75:10 All the horns of the wicked also will I cut off; but the horns of
the righteous shall be exalted.
Since when did the wicked and righteous grow "horns?"
Da 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media
and Persia.
The kings of Media and Persia (men of authority) were LITERALLY a ram with
two "horns?"
On the antithetic meaning of "Lamb."
Isa 66:3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth
a
lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if
he
offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol.
Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their
abominations.
On the meaning of "dragon."
Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword
shall
punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked
serpent;
and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.
God has a beef with sea creatures?
Eze 29:3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against
thee,
Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his
rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for
myself.
Pharaoh was literally a "dragon?"
Re 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the
Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years...
THIS is exegesis, oh, clueless one.
Not at all. That's you throwing a shotgun blast of verses,
still not demonstrating from any text that the Bible
specifically equates beasts with legalists.
WRONG.
I EXAMINE EVERY PROPHETS' USE OF EVERY SYMBOL, THEREBY ARRIVING AT THE
BIBLICAL SOLUTION TO PROPHETIC SYMBOLISM (unless it is otherwise embedded or
declared in the texts, like the declaration that "waters" are "peoples,
multitudes, nations, and tongues," (i.e. THE GENTILES), which sets up the
other half of the equation).
The MEANING of the symbolisms ARE GIVEN IN THE BIBLE, or EMBEDDED IN THE
WORDS OF THE TEXTS.
No guesswork required.
Somebody forgot to tell the Dipsysensationalists.
Ike
Now, where is your passage of Scripture that clearly equates
beasts, not just with Gentiles, generally, but with legalists,
specifically.
Go back to REVELATION, moron.
"And I saw a BEAST rise from the EARTH, having TWO HORNS LIKE A LAMB, but
spake as a DRAGON."
THIS is what is spoken of by THE PROPHETS concerning ISRAEL and the ARABS...
Jer 6:9-15
Thus saith the LORD of hosts,
They shall thoroughly glean the remnant of Israel as a vine: turn back
thine hand as a grapegatherer into the baskets.
To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear?
Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the
word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.
Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in:
I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon THE ASSEMBLY OF YOUNG
MEN TOGETHER: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged
with him that is full of days.
And their houses shall be TURNED UNTO OTHERS, with their fields and
wives together: for I will stretch out my hand upon the inhabitants of the
land, saith the LORD. For from the least of them even unto the greatest of
them every one is given to COVETOUSNESS; and from the PROPHET even unto the
PRIEST every one DEALETH FALSELY.
They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly,
saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
Were they ashamed when they had COMMITTED ABOMINATION?
Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore
they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they
shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
WHAT "ABOMINATION?"
THE ABOMINATION OF THE JEWS AND MUSLIMS (and later the Gentiles) STANDING
TOGETHER IN ASSEMBLIES IN THE TEMPLE, AS THE "OTHER SEMITES" (and later the
Gentiles) LEGALLY ATTACH THEMSELVES TO ISRAEL AND PARTICIPATION IN THE
TEMPLE PRACTICES, saying "PEACE, PEACE," WHEN THERE IS NO PEACE.
GET IT YET, MORON?
THEY AGREE TO GO TOGETHER INTO THE TEMPLE, WHEREAS GOD DESIGNATED ONLY ONE.
"And I SAW A BEAST rise from THE EARTH, having TWO HORNS of a lamb, but
SPAKE AS A DRAGON."
(But, in truth, NEITHER ONE will be THE "ONE" that God ACTUALLY
DELEGATED--THAT "ISRAEL" IS HIDDEN.)
THESE ARE THE "JEWS WHO ARE NOT JEWS," ***LEGALLY*** ATTEMPTING TO ATTACH
THEMSELVES TO THE PROMISES OF ABRAHAM.
Come back when you HAVE A CLUE, oh, clueless one.
Ike
|
There's a difference between having a clue what the Bible
says, and having a clue about what you want it to mean.
I quoted a passage of Scripture that directly equates the
_licentious_ with beasts. You have not quoted a passage that
directly equates _legalists_ with beasts. Rather, you are
claiming it's inferred by an unlikely, synthesis of multiple
passages.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5 |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Ike
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: Re: # SEXUAL LIFE IN THE PARADISE ? # |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7kkhg4prdi2bccd136he9eqab1tog73td7@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:45:25 -0500,
in article <geaegs$gum$1@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rr0fg45bls0efvahhb9o7e7mdlkgrju70k@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:01:14 -0500,
in article <ge6rdv$4co$1@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qmdcg4ps7u2roieojgnupkvmv5jhlfk82a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:36:51 -0500,
in article <ge4cl5$qgn$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
[Trim to point]
Even so, you still haven't produced a single verse, even from
what you do consider Scripture, that comes right out and
states that it is specifically legalists who are the beasts of
the field.
Yes, I did: JOHN'S USE OF SYMBOLISM IN REVELATION, UPHELD BY THE REST
OF
THE
PROPHETS.
"And I saw a beast," meaning NATURAL, UNGODLY MAN;
"rise from the EARTH," meaning FROM AMONG THE SEMITES;
"having two horns," meaning having authority of TWO THINGS;
"of a lamb," meaning AS A SELF-DEFINED SAVIOR, which means the TWO
THINGS
that the beast has authority over are the TWO RELIGIOUS NATIONS of the
SEMITES, ISRAEL AND ISLAM;
"but spoke as a DRAGON," meaning HE WAS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH.
AND HOW DOES THIS "BEAST" COME BY THIS POWER?
ANSWER: BY ATTACHING HIMSELF TO ISRAEL AND ISLAM AT THE SAME TIME BY
RECOGNIZING ISLAM'S COMPETING CLAIM TO THE PROMISES OF ABRAHAM, EVEN
THOUGH
THE ARABS ARE OF THE REJECTED SONS WHILE THE ISRAELITES ARE OF THE
SELECTED
SONS. (But, in truth, NEITHER ONE OF THESE will be "Israelites," as
God
still has His "Israel" hidden in the nations.)
THAT'S "LEGALISM," MORON.
That's not exegesis, that's your imagination.
You wish.
On the meaning of "beast:"
Ps 73:22 So foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a beast before thee.
Ec 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit
of
the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
All "animals" go to hell?
Jer 31:27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the
house
of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed
of
beast.
God commits "bestiality?'
On the meaning of "earth."
Ps 69:34 Let the heaven and earth praise him, the seas, and every thing
that
moveth therein.
The "earth" can praise?
Jer 46:8 Egypt riseth up like a flood, and his waters are moved like the
rivers; and he saith, I will go up, and will cover the earth; I will
destroy
the city and the inhabitants thereof.
Egypt thought it could conceivably cover the whole "planet?"
Eze 34:27 And the tree of the field shall yield her fruit, and the earth
shall yield her increase, and they shall be safe in their land, and
shall
know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke, and
delivered them out of the hand of those that served themselves of them.
The earth has its own "lands?" The "earth" will know God is Lord? God
will
deliver the "earth?"
Ho 2:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the
LORD,
I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth;
The "earth" can hear? And be heard?
Ho 2:22 And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil;
and
they shall hear Jezreel.
Again, the "earth" can hear?
On the meaning of "horns."
Ps 75:10 All the horns of the wicked also will I cut off; but the horns
of
the righteous shall be exalted.
Since when did the wicked and righteous grow "horns?"
Da 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of
Media
and Persia.
The kings of Media and Persia (men of authority) were LITERALLY a ram
with
two "horns?"
On the antithetic meaning of "Lamb."
Isa 66:3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that
sacrificeth
a
lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if
he
offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an
idol.
Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their
abominations.
On the meaning of "dragon."
Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword
shall
punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked
serpent;
and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.
God has a beef with sea creatures?
Eze 29:3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against
thee,
Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his
rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for
myself.
Pharaoh was literally a "dragon?"
Re 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the
Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years...
THIS is exegesis, oh, clueless one.
Not at all. That's you throwing a shotgun blast of verses,
still not demonstrating from any text that the Bible
specifically equates beasts with legalists.
WRONG.
I EXAMINE EVERY PROPHETS' USE OF EVERY SYMBOL, THEREBY ARRIVING AT THE
BIBLICAL SOLUTION TO PROPHETIC SYMBOLISM (unless it is otherwise embedded
or
declared in the texts, like the declaration that "waters" are "peoples,
multitudes, nations, and tongues," (i.e. THE GENTILES), which sets up the
other half of the equation).
The MEANING of the symbolisms ARE GIVEN IN THE BIBLE, or EMBEDDED IN THE
WORDS OF THE TEXTS.
No guesswork required.
Somebody forgot to tell the Dipsysensationalists.
Ike
Now, where is your passage of Scripture that clearly equates
beasts, not just with Gentiles, generally, but with legalists,
specifically.
Go back to REVELATION, moron.
"And I saw a BEAST rise from the EARTH, having TWO HORNS LIKE A LAMB, but
spake as a DRAGON."
THIS is what is spoken of by THE PROPHETS concerning ISRAEL and the
ARABS...
Jer 6:9-15
Thus saith the LORD of hosts,
They shall thoroughly glean the remnant of Israel as a vine: turn back
thine hand as a grapegatherer into the baskets.
To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear?
Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold,
the
word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.
Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding
in:
I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon THE ASSEMBLY OF
YOUNG
MEN TOGETHER: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged
with him that is full of days.
And their houses shall be TURNED UNTO OTHERS, with their fields and
wives together: for I will stretch out my hand upon the inhabitants of the
land, saith the LORD. For from the least of them even unto the greatest of
them every one is given to COVETOUSNESS; and from the PROPHET even unto
the
PRIEST every one DEALETH FALSELY.
They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly,
saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
Were they ashamed when they had COMMITTED ABOMINATION?
Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore
they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they
shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
WHAT "ABOMINATION?"
THE ABOMINATION OF THE JEWS AND MUSLIMS (and later the Gentiles) STANDING
TOGETHER IN ASSEMBLIES IN THE TEMPLE, AS THE "OTHER SEMITES" (and later
the
Gentiles) LEGALLY ATTACH THEMSELVES TO ISRAEL AND PARTICIPATION IN THE
TEMPLE PRACTICES, saying "PEACE, PEACE," WHEN THERE IS NO PEACE.
GET IT YET, MORON?
THEY AGREE TO GO TOGETHER INTO THE TEMPLE, WHEREAS GOD DESIGNATED ONLY
ONE.
"And I SAW A BEAST rise from THE EARTH, having TWO HORNS of a lamb, but
SPAKE AS A DRAGON."
(But, in truth, NEITHER ONE will be THE "ONE" that God ACTUALLY
DELEGATED--THAT "ISRAEL" IS HIDDEN.)
THESE ARE THE "JEWS WHO ARE NOT JEWS," ***LEGALLY*** ATTEMPTING TO ATTACH
THEMSELVES TO THE PROMISES OF ABRAHAM.
Come back when you HAVE A CLUE, oh, clueless one.
Ike
There's a difference between having a clue what the Bible
says, and having a clue about what you want it to mean.
I quoted a passage of Scripture that directly equates the
_licentious_ with beasts.
|
YEAH...FROM A BOOK THAT DOESN'T EVEN BELONG IN THE BIBLE, THAT STANDS ALONE
AGAINST ALL THE PROPHETS.
What an idiot.
HERE.
TRY THIS.
GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE.
Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the
LORD God had made.
WHICH ONE WAS HE, moron?
A SERPENT (i.e A REPTILE) or A BEAST OF THE FIELD (i.e. A MAMMAL)?
ANSWER: NEITHER ONE, idiot boy--THEY'RE METAPHORS.
Satan was A SERPENT because the creature was A SELF-GLORIFYING,
SELF-WORSHIPPING LIAR.
Satan was THE MOST SUBTLE "BEAST OF THE FIELD" because the creature KNEW HOW
TO MISHANDLE THE LAW, which is PRECISELY WHAT THE "BEAST" DID TO EVE IN THE
VERY NEXT PASSAGE...
Gen 3:1a-5
And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of
every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the
trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of
the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch
it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God
doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
WHAT WAS THIS, moron?
ANSWER: AN EXERCISE IN LEGALISM, Satan CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE LAW to
DECEIVE EVE, DISMISSING ITS POTENCY, AND ACCUSING GOD OF WITHHOLDING POWER,
so THE "MOST SUBTLE BEAST OF THE FIELD" COULD STEAL ADAM AND EVE'S GLORY
THROUGH LEGAL MANIPULATION.
| Quote: | You have not quoted a passage that
directly equates _legalists_ with beasts. Rather, you are
claiming it's inferred by an unlikely, synthesis of multiple
passages.
|
I'll say it again: YOU are AN ASSHOLE.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Randy ®
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: # SEXUAL LIFE IN THE PARADISE ? # |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:31:25 -0500,
in article <gebgrg$dvc$1@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
[Trim to point]
| Quote: | There's a difference between having a clue what the Bible
says, and having a clue about what you want it to mean.
I quoted a passage of Scripture that directly equates the
_licentious_ with beasts.
YEAH...FROM A BOOK THAT DOESN'T EVEN BELONG IN THE BIBLE, THAT STANDS ALONE
AGAINST ALL THE PROPHETS.
What an idiot.
|
So you admit then, that your theology doesn't work, if the
content between the gospels and Revelation is Scripture?
| Quote: | HERE.
TRY THIS.
GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE.
Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the
LORD God had made.
WHICH ONE WAS HE, moron?
A SERPENT (i.e A REPTILE) or A BEAST OF THE FIELD (i.e. A MAMMAL)?
ANSWER: NEITHER ONE, idiot boy--THEY'RE METAPHORS.
|
Now, if only you had claimed legalists are serpents <snicker>.
| Quote: | Satan was A SERPENT because the creature was A SELF-GLORIFYING,
SELF-WORSHIPPING LIAR.
Satan was THE MOST SUBTLE "BEAST OF THE FIELD"
|
It doesn't say he was the most subtle beast of the field. It
says he was more subtle than any beast of the field. That's a
contrast, not an equation.
For example:
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because
thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and
above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go,
and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
That verse says the serpent was cursed above all cattle. Does
that then necessitate serpents are a form of cattle? No, it's
a contrast, not an equation.
It's the licentious the Bible likens to beasts. Your gospel
is a licentious gospel, just like the Bible warns against:
Jud 1:4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about
long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless
men, who change the grace of our God into a license for
immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
That's why you try to play off legalism, as if the real gospel
is a license to sin.
| Quote: | because the creature KNEW HOW
TO MISHANDLE THE LAW, which is PRECISELY WHAT THE "BEAST" DID TO EVE IN THE
VERY NEXT PASSAGE...
|
ibid. You are falsely claiming the passage equates the
serpent with a "beast", when in fact it contrasts him with the
beasts.
| Quote: | Gen 3:1a-5
And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of
every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the
trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of
the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch
it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God
doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
WHAT WAS THIS, moron?
ANSWER: AN EXERCISE IN LEGALISM, Satan CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE LAW to
DECEIVE EVE, DISMISSING ITS POTENCY, AND ACCUSING GOD OF WITHHOLDING POWER,
so THE "MOST SUBTLE BEAST OF THE FIELD" COULD STEAL ADAM AND EVE'S GLORY
THROUGH LEGAL MANIPULATION.
|
Now if only you had claimed legalists are "serpents" <chuckle>
| Quote: | You have not quoted a passage that
directly equates _legalists_ with beasts. Rather, you are
claiming it's inferred by an unlikely, synthesis of multiple
passages.
I'll say it again: YOU are AN ASSHOLE.
|
That's all you're left with, after you realize you can't
support your desired theology with exegesis.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Yap
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:42 am Post subject: Re: Chicken Duke's Insecurity Showing - Again |
|
|
On Oct 30, 2:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On 29 Oct 2008 16:06:55 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:54:10 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:13:02 -0400, Stan-O <bndsna...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:44:12 -0400, Tim Miller
replyonnewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
duke wrote:
Then your participation is hereby requested. You pick the subject.
...any of the posts you wish, any of the threads you wish, particularly
where you engage with a 'one line' response....
Ok. God created the universe and everything in it including man and the laws of
physics and chemistry.
WHICH god?
Oh for cryin' out loud! Don't him started!
There's only one.
Correction: you choose to count no farther than one, Idiot Earl.
There is only one, west loop. And he will be your judge at the moment you die.
Be careful.
What is there to be careful when he is not elected to rule over us? |
Or do you not believe in demoncrazy?
| Quote: |
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Elijahovah
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject: Re: # SEXUAL LIFE IN THE PARADISE ? # |
|
|
Evil people look at others and make up all the trash of
what they did and did not do in their life.
Moses placed such evil people before him,
how did he, by saying come to me if you want to
disagree. He then took such evil people and said
let us see how well you know Jehovah. This is what
you people writing here do not know. You do not know
Jehovah because if you did you would know Moses wrote both versions
of Genesis. Your stupid brain would interpret that as writing them
both at the same time. You ignore the fact that scripture by Moses
says he was not good at speaking. Oh stupid evil ones,
when you are not good at speakin in words verbally,
you are also not good at speaking in words on paper,
and you do rewrite constantly. I do all the time, but this
does not mean i do not see jehovah.
So Moses showed them they do not know Jehovah, that is why
he rewrote Genesis with the name Jehovah. It is why he attempts
to distinguish in what aspects our creator is GOD and in what
other aspects our creator is JEHOVAH. You need to see
when he uses the name Jehovah because it unveils what is
happening and being done that makes him Jehovah for that
specific written verse. And so he began to show they do not know
Jehovah
by telling them to gather before him on cracked ground while he stood
on the volcanic shaking trembling erupting mountain with lightning
flashing around. And as they gathered on cracked ground, bring me
more he said, show me how many are willing to stand against
what i know of Jehovah, (the more the weight, the more the evident
predictable collapse of that ground would be), and down they all went
because they did not see Jehovah was under their feet.
This is how Jehovah is in all things. It is not one's own wisdom
and look how smart Moses or Solomon is, but it is the knowledge
learned itself and not who learned it. Anyone who learns should
lead, but you are like they who grab leadership when you know
nothing, what you know is shit. For this Jehovah devours you.
He will devour you, but he already does in all your failures
you keep ignoring just as Pharaoh ignored failure after failure
until it was a failure big enough to kill him and those with him.
ELIJAH
Your hour of death has arrived.
I see it as the cracked ground before me.
(write to rschiller@wi.rr.com) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Elijahovah
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject: Re: # SEXUAL LIFE IN THE PARADISE ? # |
|
|
You are pathetic that you claim Genesis
is symbolic names for symbolic names given to Peter.
You imply Peter was given symbolic names and so
it means the same names in Genesis are symbolic.
Peter had real names, he got them from Genesis,
he got real names and therefore Genesis which has
the same names are real.
This is how stupid you reason, you think merely by
throwing scripture beside scripture you can claim
the refer to each other in the way you interpret them.
Like Satan you lie to Eve and tell her she was banned
from all food not just one tree. Moses wrote of Satan
not to pin blame on one person but to show the blame
begins with liars and this is the way they lie.
Therefore do understand that Satan does not stand alone,
you stand with him, to die with him. You are the enemy
along with him. You will be slaughtered. Your posts alone
will bring that to you because you will not be able to
admit who by post you are in the day you flee trying to
save your life. Upon knowing who you are your own kind
will draw your blood upon the ground saying you brought
this on us, we all die because of you bastard. Just as many
killed each other in the Flood blaming those they listened to,
so too those who blame you will slaughter your wife and children
before your eyes at Amrageddon.
It is a fact of you atheistic human behavior that you do this in
disaster
and war.
ELIJAH
Declaring the condemnation they bring upon themselves
whether you call it Jehovah or call it karma. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ike
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: # SEXUAL LIFE IN THE PARADISE ? # |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ll2jg4pcg70jbgrf1okbdd5m4nhobceouc@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:31:25 -0500,
in article <gebgrg$dvc$1@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
[Trim to point]
There's a difference between having a clue what the Bible
says, and having a clue about what you want it to mean.
I quoted a passage of Scripture that directly equates the
_licentious_ with beasts.
YEAH...FROM A BOOK THAT DOESN'T EVEN BELONG IN THE BIBLE, THAT STANDS
ALONE
AGAINST ALL THE PROPHETS.
What an idiot.
So you admit then, that your theology doesn't work, if the
content between the gospels and Revelation is Scripture?
|
Bub, NOBODY'S "Theology" works WITH THE CONTENT BETWEEN THE GOSPELS AND
REVELATION when they READ WHAT THE CONTENT ACTUALLY SAYS, like the author of
2 Peter equating THE END OF THE AGE and THE END OF THE WORLD.
Did you know that the KJV translators translated "aeon" as "world" ON
PURPOSE because they were AMILLENNIALISTS?
So, in fact, they DIDN'T see any conflict between 2 Peter and Revelation (et
al.) BECAUSE THEIR THEOLOGY was SCREWED UP TO BEGIN WITH. (And still is.)
But once one interprets Jesus' statements the RIGHT way, using "age" instead
of "world," IT BECOMES GLARINGLY EVIDENT THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH 2
PETER.
Of course, morons don't pay attention to the details, so they don't SEE that
there is a CONFLICT between the GOSPELS AND REVELATION versus 2 PETER.
(Which actually takes us to were the problem began, the canonization of the
NEW TESTAMENT ITSELF, in which the "authorities" DID NOT KEEP TO HARD AND
FAST RULES, as the Jews did in their canonization process.)
| Quote: | HERE.
TRY THIS.
GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE.
Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which
the
LORD God had made.
WHICH ONE WAS HE, moron?
A SERPENT (i.e A REPTILE) or A BEAST OF THE FIELD (i.e. A MAMMAL)?
ANSWER: NEITHER ONE, idiot boy--THEY'RE METAPHORS.
Now, if only you had claimed legalists are serpents <snicker>.
|
???
Another asinine statement from Randy.
THERE WERE TWO METAPHORS IN THE SAME STATEMENT: "SERPENT" AND "BEAST OF THE
FIELD."
The prophetic metaphor "SERPENTS" is always used for "IDOLATERS."
The prophetic metaphor "BEASTS OF THE FIELD" is always used for "LEGALISTS."
| Quote: | Satan was A SERPENT because the creature was A SELF-GLORIFYING,
SELF-WORSHIPPING LIAR.
Satan was THE MOST SUBTLE "BEAST OF THE FIELD"
It doesn't say he was the most subtle beast of the field. It
says he was more subtle than any beast of the field. That's a
contrast, not an equation.
|
No, that's an ASININE STATEMENT is what it is.
IF SATAN WAS MORE SUBTLE THAN ANY BEAST OF THE FIELD WHICH GOD HAD MADE,
THEN SATAN WAS THE MOST SUBTLE BEAST OF THE FIELD.
| Quote: | For example:
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because
thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and
above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go,
and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
That verse says the serpent was cursed above all cattle. Does
that then necessitate serpents are a form of cattle? No, it's
a contrast, not an equation.
|
NO, IT'S A METAPHOR, NOT A LITERALISM, dumbass.
SATAN WAS THE MOST "LEGALISTIC," HENCE, THE MOST "SUBTLE" OF THE "BEASTS OF
THE FIELDS," AND WAS CURSED ABOVE ALL OTHERS.
THEY'RE NOT LITERAL STATEMENTS, moron--THEY'RE METAPHORS.
| Quote: | It's the licentious the Bible likens to beasts.
|
HEY, MORON: WHAT IS "LICENTIOUSNESS" BUT A FORM OF "LEGALISM?"
WHEN SATAN TRICKED EVE, HE INVITED HER TO "TAKE LICENSE" WITH THE LAW BY
REPLACING IT WITH SATAN'S OWN VERSION OF THE LAW.
| Quote: | Your gospel
is a licentious gospel, just like the Bible warns against:
|
HORSESHIT!
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAS LICENSE!
NOW YOU'RE JUST DROPPING MORE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, SATAN, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
DISPROVE MY STATEMENTS OR PROVE YOURS!
| Quote: | Jud 1:4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about
long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless
men, who change the grace of our God into a license for
immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
|
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAD LICENSE TO BREAK THE LAW, SATAN?
| Quote: | That's why you try to play off legalism, as if the real gospel
is a license to sin.
|
???
HORSESHIT.
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAS LICENSE TO BREAK THE LAW, SATAN?
| Quote: | the creature KNEW HOW
TO MISHANDLE THE LAW, which is PRECISELY WHAT THE "BEAST" DID TO EVE IN
THE
VERY NEXT PASSAGE...
ibid.
|
ONCE AGAIN, RANDY MAKES ANOTHER ASININE STATEMENT.
SATAN IS A LAWYER, jackass. SATAN KNOWS PRECISELY HOW TO TAKE THE LAW AND
TWIST IT TO WORK THE WAY THE BEAST WANTS.
THAT'S A FORM OF "LEGALISM."
| Quote: | You are falsely claiming the passage equates the
serpent with a "beast", when in fact it contrasts him with the
beasts.
|
WHAT AN IDIOT.
THEY'RE METAPHORS, MORON.
SERPENT for SELF-GLORIFYING IDOLATER.
"BEAST OF THE FIELD" FOR "LEGALIST."
| Quote: | Gen 3:1a-5
And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of
every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the
trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of
the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch
it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God
doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
WHAT WAS THIS, moron?
ANSWER: AN EXERCISE IN LEGALISM, Satan CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE LAW to
DECEIVE EVE, DISMISSING ITS POTENCY, AND ACCUSING GOD OF WITHHOLDING
POWER,
so THE "MOST SUBTLE BEAST OF THE FIELD" COULD STEAL ADAM AND EVE'S GLORY
THROUGH LEGAL MANIPULATION.
Now if only you had claimed legalists are "serpents" <chuckle
|
AND RANDY MAKES ANOTHER ASININE STATEMENT INSTEAD OF SEPARATING THE
METAPHORS.
"SERPENT" FOR "IDOLATER."
"BEAST OF THE FIELD" FOR "LEGALIST."
SATAN WAS BOTH.
| Quote: | You have not quoted a passage that
directly equates _legalists_ with beasts. Rather, you are
claiming it's inferred by an unlikely, synthesis of multiple
passages.
I'll say it again: YOU are AN ASSHOLE.
That's all you're left with, after you realize you can't
support your desired theology with exegesis.
|
THE PROBLEM WITH ASSHOLES IS THEY DON'T SEE WHY THEY'RE ASSHOLES.
IF YOU WANT TO GET DOWN TO BRASS TACKS, SATAN IS ALL FOUR METAPHORS, BEING
THE PERFECT MANIFESTATION OF ALL SIN.
CATTLE = FALSELY HUMANISTIC, APPEALING TO HUMAN WILL RATHER THAN GODLY WILL.
CREEPING THINGS = IDOLATER, PUTTING WORSHIP OF THE BEAST ITSELF RATHER THAN
GOD.
BEAST OF THE FIELD = LEGALIST, PITTING THE BEASTS TAKE ON THE LAW VERSUS
GOD'S.
FOWLS OF THE AIR = SPIRITUALIST, PUTTING FALSE WORSHIP INTO THE HEARTS OF
THE BEAST'S FOLLOWERS RATHER THAN GODLY WORSHIP.
AND ASK YOURSELF THIS, moron: WITH WHOM DID JESUS TAKE ISSUE?
ANSWER: THE SCRIBES AND LAWYERS.
WHY?
BECAUSE PEOPLE COULDN'T READ (which opened up the door to abuse) AND PEOPLE
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAID (which opened up the door to abuse).
THEY HAD TO GO BY WHAT THE SCRIBES AND LAWYERS SAID (which was all twisted
by Satan).
AGAIN, HOW DID SATAN COME AFTER JESUS?
BY TEMPTING JESUS WITH PERVERSE LEGALISM, QUOTING THE WORD, BUT ABERRANTLY
SO.
Let me know when you get a clue.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: Please, DO NOT forget the only thing that matters on thi |
|
|
On Oct 31, 9:45 pm, "last.chance" <last.chance.to.parad...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Some hundred thousands people saw it....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOg4fAX8jc4
Were they all having an illusion ?
|
Yes, they were. Bunch of stupid tossers, all of them
| Quote: | If you manage to love those who want to harm you, then you will
gain something beyond any imagination.
|
A better stratagem would be to keep clear of them. And a knife in the
back is not beyond imagination in any case.
| Quote: | Anything opposing to the above is at least suspicious (don't you
agree with that, deep in your soul?)
|
What tosh. Nothing suspicious about steering clear of nasty people.
| Quote: | Keep you eyes open, for the things to come... and do not be afraid,
because your soul is untouchable.
|
That's because, like every other living organism on this planet, I
don't have any such thing, touchable or otherwise.
| Quote: | Do not care about your mortal body.
|
I think you'd better start to care. It's the only life you'll ever
get.
After all, it is just a matter of
| Quote: | time to disintegrate.
No fear, my sisters and brothers.
|
You got that bit right. There's no God to fear, no Satan, no Shiva, no
Lucifer, no Wodin, no bogeyman ...
| Quote: | (After reading this, if you feel you need to do something, then
send this video-page to your friends and family. Thank you.)
|
Not f**king likely. My friends and family think I'm quite sane, and I
have no wish to destroy that illusion.
| Quote: | And please, pray-pray-pray for friends and enemies as well. If we
only knew the help of our prayer on world’s future events
|
We do so know. It has absolutely no effect whatsoever. You'd be better
off spending the time masturbating. At least it's pleasurable. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ike
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: Re: # SEXUAL LIFE IN THE PARADISE ? # |
|
|
"Elijahovah" <rschiller@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cc2342c2-fa3c-4f53-a256-eff8bd083f51@b31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
....nothing that had to do with the topic, "Sexual life in paradise."
[snip]
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ike
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Re: # SEXUAL LIFE IN THE PARADISE ? # |
|
|
"Elijahovah" <rschiller@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ce6ed648-294b-4757-a02a-7513ccd99e95@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | You are pathetic that you claim Genesis
is symbolic names for symbolic names given to Peter.
|
YOU are pathetic thinking that GOD DIDN'T USE THE SAME SYMBOLS ON PURPOSE to
tell us both those to whom Peter was supposed to preach the Gospel, AND who
they were IN THE FIRST PLACE.
(Oh, and they're used the same way throughout the REST of the prophets,
too.)
[snip]
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Randy ®
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:09 am Post subject: Re: # SEXUAL LIFE IN THE PARADISE ? # |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:14:52 -0500,
in article <geeiaf$9ki$1@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ll2jg4pcg70jbgrf1okbdd5m4nhobceouc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:31:25 -0500,
in article <gebgrg$dvc$1@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
[Trim to point]
There's a difference between having a clue what the Bible
says, and having a clue about what you want it to mean.
I quoted a passage of Scripture that directly equates the
_licentious_ with beasts.
YEAH...FROM A BOOK THAT DOESN'T EVEN BELONG IN THE BIBLE, THAT STANDS
ALONE
AGAINST ALL THE PROPHETS.
What an idiot.
So you admit then, that your theology doesn't work, if the
content between the gospels and Revelation is Scripture?
Bub, NOBODY'S "Theology" works WITH THE CONTENT BETWEEN THE GOSPELS AND
REVELATION when they READ WHAT THE CONTENT ACTUALLY SAYS, like the author of
2 Peter equating THE END OF THE AGE and THE END OF THE WORLD.
Did you know that the KJV translators translated "aeon" as "world" ON
PURPOSE because they were AMILLENNIALISTS?
So, in fact, they DIDN'T see any conflict between 2 Peter and Revelation (et
al.) BECAUSE THEIR THEOLOGY was SCREWED UP TO BEGIN WITH. (And still is.)
But once one interprets Jesus' statements the RIGHT way, using "age" instead
of "world," IT BECOMES GLARINGLY EVIDENT THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH 2
PETER.
Of course, morons don't pay attention to the details, so they don't SEE that
there is a CONFLICT between the GOSPELS AND REVELATION versus 2 PETER.
(Which actually takes us to were the problem began, the canonization of the
NEW TESTAMENT ITSELF, in which the "authorities" DID NOT KEEP TO HARD AND
FAST RULES, as the Jews did in their canonization process.)
HERE.
TRY THIS.
GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE.
Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which
the
LORD God had made.
WHICH ONE WAS HE, moron?
A SERPENT (i.e A REPTILE) or A BEAST OF THE FIELD (i.e. A MAMMAL)?
ANSWER: NEITHER ONE, idiot boy--THEY'RE METAPHORS.
Now, if only you had claimed legalists are serpents <snicker>.
???
Another asinine statement from Randy.
THERE WERE TWO METAPHORS IN THE SAME STATEMENT: "SERPENT" AND "BEAST OF THE
FIELD."
The prophetic metaphor "SERPENTS" is always used for "IDOLATERS."
The prophetic metaphor "BEASTS OF THE FIELD" is always used for "LEGALISTS."
Satan was A SERPENT because the creature was A SELF-GLORIFYING,
SELF-WORSHIPPING LIAR.
Satan was THE MOST SUBTLE "BEAST OF THE FIELD"
It doesn't say he was the most subtle beast of the field. It
says he was more subtle than any beast of the field. That's a
contrast, not an equation.
No, that's an ASININE STATEMENT is what it is.
IF SATAN WAS MORE SUBTLE THAN ANY BEAST OF THE FIELD WHICH GOD HAD MADE,
THEN SATAN WAS THE MOST SUBTLE BEAST OF THE FIELD.
For example:
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because
thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and
above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go,
and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
That verse says the serpent was cursed above all cattle. Does
that then necessitate serpents are a form of cattle? No, it's
a contrast, not an equation.
NO, IT'S A METAPHOR, NOT A LITERALISM, dumbass.
SATAN WAS THE MOST "LEGALISTIC," HENCE, THE MOST "SUBTLE" OF THE "BEASTS OF
THE FIELDS," AND WAS CURSED ABOVE ALL OTHERS.
THEY'RE NOT LITERAL STATEMENTS, moron--THEY'RE METAPHORS.
It's the licentious the Bible likens to beasts.
HEY, MORON: WHAT IS "LICENTIOUSNESS" BUT A FORM OF "LEGALISM?"
WHEN SATAN TRICKED EVE, HE INVITED HER TO "TAKE LICENSE" WITH THE LAW BY
REPLACING IT WITH SATAN'S OWN VERSION OF THE LAW.
Your gospel
is a licentious gospel, just like the Bible warns against:
HORSESHIT!
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAS LICENSE!
NOW YOU'RE JUST DROPPING MORE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, SATAN, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
DISPROVE MY STATEMENTS OR PROVE YOURS!
Jud 1:4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about
long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless
men, who change the grace of our God into a license for
immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAD LICENSE TO BREAK THE LAW, SATAN?
That's why you try to play off legalism, as if the real gospel
is a license to sin.
???
HORSESHIT.
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAS LICENSE TO BREAK THE LAW, SATAN?
the creature KNEW HOW
TO MISHANDLE THE LAW, which is PRECISELY WHAT THE "BEAST" DID TO EVE IN
THE
VERY NEXT PASSAGE...
ibid.
ONCE AGAIN, RANDY MAKES ANOTHER ASININE STATEMENT.
SATAN IS A LAWYER, jackass. SATAN KNOWS PRECISELY HOW TO TAKE THE LAW AND
TWIST IT TO WORK THE WAY THE BEAST WANTS.
THAT'S A FORM OF "LEGALISM."
You are falsely claiming the passage equates the
serpent with a "beast", when in fact it contrasts him with the
beasts.
WHAT AN IDIOT.
THEY'RE METAPHORS, MORON.
SERPENT for SELF-GLORIFYING IDOLATER.
"BEAST OF THE FIELD" FOR "LEGALIST."
Gen 3:1a-5
And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of
every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the
trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of
the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch
it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God
doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
WHAT WAS THIS, moron?
ANSWER: AN EXERCISE IN LEGALISM, Satan CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE LAW to
DECEIVE EVE, DISMISSING ITS POTENCY, AND ACCUSING GOD OF WITHHOLDING
POWER,
so THE "MOST SUBTLE BEAST OF THE FIELD" COULD STEAL ADAM AND EVE'S GLORY
THROUGH LEGAL MANIPULATION.
Now if only you had claimed legalists are "serpents" <chuckle
AND RANDY MAKES ANOTHER ASININE STATEMENT INSTEAD OF SEPARATING THE
METAPHORS.
"SERPENT" FOR "IDOLATER."
"BEAST OF THE FIELD" FOR "LEGALIST."
SATAN WAS BOTH.
You have not quoted a passage that
directly equates _legalists_ with beasts. Rather, you are
claiming it's inferred by an unlikely, synthesis of multiple
passages.
I'll say it again: YOU are AN ASSHOLE.
That's all you're left with, after you realize you can't
support your desired theology with exegesis.
THE PROBLEM WITH ASSHOLES IS THEY DON'T SEE WHY THEY'RE ASSHOLES.
IF YOU WANT TO GET DOWN TO BRASS TACKS, SATAN IS ALL FOUR METAPHORS, BEING
THE PERFECT MANIFESTATION OF ALL SIN.
CATTLE = FALSELY HUMANISTIC, APPEALING TO HUMAN WILL RATHER THAN GODLY WILL.
CREEPING THINGS = IDOLATER, PUTTING WORSHIP OF THE BEAST ITSELF RATHER THAN
GOD.
BEAST OF THE FIELD = LEGALIST, PITTING THE BEASTS TAKE ON THE LAW VERSUS
GOD'S.
FOWLS OF THE AIR = SPIRITUALIST, PUTTING FALSE WORSHIP INTO THE HEARTS OF
THE BEAST'S FOLLOWERS RATHER THAN GODLY WORSHIP.
AND ASK YOURSELF THIS, moron: WITH WHOM DID JESUS TAKE ISSUE?
ANSWER: THE SCRIBES AND LAWYERS.
WHY?
BECAUSE PEOPLE COULDN'T READ (which opened up the door to abuse) AND PEOPLE
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAID (which opened up the door to abuse).
THEY HAD TO GO BY WHAT THE SCRIBES AND LAWYERS SAID (which was all twisted
by Satan).
AGAIN, HOW DID SATAN COME AFTER JESUS?
BY TEMPTING JESUS WITH PERVERSE LEGALISM, QUOTING THE WORD, BUT ABERRANTLY
SO.
Let me know when you get a clue.
Ike
|
ibid. As I said, there's a difference between having a clue
what the Bible says, and having a clue what you're talking
about.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ike
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:57 am Post subject: Re: # SEXUAL LIFE IN THE PARADISE ? # |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvsmg41pmgtb1nluquh7j58iddi5t5kp3n@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:14:52 -0500,
in article <geeiaf$9ki$1@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ll2jg4pcg70jbgrf1okbdd5m4nhobceouc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:31:25 -0500,
in article <gebgrg$dvc$1@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
[Trim to point]
There's a difference between having a clue what the Bible
says, and having a clue about what you want it to mean.
I quoted a passage of Scripture that directly equates the
_licentious_ with beasts.
YEAH...FROM A BOOK THAT DOESN'T EVEN BELONG IN THE BIBLE, THAT STANDS
ALONE
AGAINST ALL THE PROPHETS.
What an idiot.
So you admit then, that your theology doesn't work, if the
content between the gospels and Revelation is Scripture?
Bub, NOBODY'S "Theology" works WITH THE CONTENT BETWEEN THE GOSPELS AND
REVELATION when they READ WHAT THE CONTENT ACTUALLY SAYS, like the author
of
2 Peter equating THE END OF THE AGE and THE END OF THE WORLD.
Did you know that the KJV translators translated "aeon" as "world" ON
PURPOSE because they were AMILLENNIALISTS?
So, in fact, they DIDN'T see any conflict between 2 Peter and Revelation
(et
al.) BECAUSE THEIR THEOLOGY was SCREWED UP TO BEGIN WITH. (And still is.)
But once one interprets Jesus' statements the RIGHT way, using "age"
instead
of "world," IT BECOMES GLARINGLY EVIDENT THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH 2
PETER.
Of course, morons don't pay attention to the details, so they don't SEE
that
there is a CONFLICT between the GOSPELS AND REVELATION versus 2 PETER.
(Which actually takes us to were the problem began, the canonization of
the
NEW TESTAMENT ITSELF, in which the "authorities" DID NOT KEEP TO HARD AND
FAST RULES, as the Jews did in their canonization process.)
HERE.
TRY THIS.
GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE.
Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which
the
LORD God had made.
WHICH ONE WAS HE, moron?
A SERPENT (i.e A REPTILE) or A BEAST OF THE FIELD (i.e. A MAMMAL)?
ANSWER: NEITHER ONE, idiot boy--THEY'RE METAPHORS.
Now, if only you had claimed legalists are serpents <snicker>.
???
Another asinine statement from Randy.
THERE WERE TWO METAPHORS IN THE SAME STATEMENT: "SERPENT" AND "BEAST OF
THE
FIELD."
The prophetic metaphor "SERPENTS" is always used for "IDOLATERS."
The prophetic metaphor "BEASTS OF THE FIELD" is always used for
"LEGALISTS."
Satan was A SERPENT because the creature was A SELF-GLORIFYING,
SELF-WORSHIPPING LIAR.
Satan was THE MOST SUBTLE "BEAST OF THE FIELD"
It doesn't say he was the most subtle beast of the field. It
says he was more subtle than any beast of the field. That's a
contrast, not an equation.
No, that's an ASININE STATEMENT is what it is.
IF SATAN WAS MORE SUBTLE THAN ANY BEAST OF THE FIELD WHICH GOD HAD MADE,
THEN SATAN WAS THE MOST SUBTLE BEAST OF THE FIELD.
For example:
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because
thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and
above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go,
and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
That verse says the serpent was cursed above all cattle. Does
that then necessitate serpents are a form of cattle? No, it's
a contrast, not an equation.
NO, IT'S A METAPHOR, NOT A LITERALISM, dumbass.
SATAN WAS THE MOST "LEGALISTIC," HENCE, THE MOST "SUBTLE" OF THE "BEASTS
OF
THE FIELDS," AND WAS CURSED ABOVE ALL OTHERS.
THEY'RE NOT LITERAL STATEMENTS, moron--THEY'RE METAPHORS.
It's the licentious the Bible likens to beasts.
HEY, MORON: WHAT IS "LICENTIOUSNESS" BUT A FORM OF "LEGALISM?"
WHEN SATAN TRICKED EVE, HE INVITED HER TO "TAKE LICENSE" WITH THE LAW BY
REPLACING IT WITH SATAN'S OWN VERSION OF THE LAW.
Your gospel
is a licentious gospel, just like the Bible warns against:
HORSESHIT!
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAS LICENSE!
NOW YOU'RE JUST DROPPING MORE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, SATAN, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
DISPROVE MY STATEMENTS OR PROVE YOURS!
Jud 1:4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about
long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless
men, who change the grace of our God into a license for
immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAD LICENSE TO BREAK THE LAW, SATAN?
That's why you try to play off legalism, as if the real gospel
is a license to sin.
???
HORSESHIT.
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAS LICENSE TO BREAK THE LAW, SATAN?
the creature KNEW HOW
TO MISHANDLE THE LAW, which is PRECISELY WHAT THE "BEAST" DID TO EVE IN
THE
VERY NEXT PASSAGE...
ibid.
ONCE AGAIN, RANDY MAKES ANOTHER ASININE STATEMENT.
SATAN IS A LAWYER, jackass. SATAN KNOWS PRECISELY HOW TO TAKE THE LAW AND
TWIST IT TO WORK THE WAY THE BEAST WANTS.
THAT'S A FORM OF "LEGALISM."
You are falsely claiming the passage equates the
serpent with a "beast", when in fact it contrasts him with the
beasts.
WHAT AN IDIOT.
THEY'RE METAPHORS, MORON.
SERPENT for SELF-GLORIFYING IDOLATER.
"BEAST OF THE FIELD" FOR "LEGALIST."
Gen 3:1a-5
And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of
every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the
trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst
of
the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye
touch
it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For
God
doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
opened,
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
WHAT WAS THIS, moron?
ANSWER: AN EXERCISE IN LEGALISM, Satan CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE LAW to
DECEIVE EVE, DISMISSING ITS POTENCY, AND ACCUSING GOD OF WITHHOLDING
POWER,
so THE "MOST SUBTLE BEAST OF THE FIELD" COULD STEAL ADAM AND EVE'S GLORY
THROUGH LEGAL MANIPULATION.
Now if only you had claimed legalists are "serpents" <chuckle
AND RANDY MAKES ANOTHER ASININE STATEMENT INSTEAD OF SEPARATING THE
METAPHORS.
"SERPENT" FOR "IDOLATER."
"BEAST OF THE FIELD" FOR "LEGALIST."
SATAN WAS BOTH.
You have not quoted a passage that
directly equates _legalists_ with beasts. Rather, you are
claiming it's inferred by an unlikely, synthesis of multiple
passages.
I'll say it again: YOU are AN ASSHOLE.
That's all you're left with, after you realize you can't
support your desired theology with exegesis.
THE PROBLEM WITH ASSHOLES IS THEY DON'T SEE WHY THEY'RE ASSHOLES.
IF YOU WANT TO GET DOWN TO BRASS TACKS, SATAN IS ALL FOUR METAPHORS, BEING
THE PERFECT MANIFESTATION OF ALL SIN.
CATTLE = FALSELY HUMANISTIC, APPEALING TO HUMAN WILL RATHER THAN GODLY
WILL.
CREEPING THINGS = IDOLATER, PUTTING WORSHIP OF THE BEAST ITSELF RATHER
THAN
GOD.
BEAST OF THE FIELD = LEGALIST, PITTING THE BEASTS TAKE ON THE LAW VERSUS
GOD'S.
FOWLS OF THE AIR = SPIRITUALIST, PUTTING FALSE WORSHIP INTO THE HEARTS OF
THE BEAST'S FOLLOWERS RATHER THAN GODLY WORSHIP.
AND ASK YOURSELF THIS, moron: WITH WHOM DID JESUS TAKE ISSUE?
ANSWER: THE SCRIBES AND LAWYERS.
WHY?
BECAUSE PEOPLE COULDN'T READ (which opened up the door to abuse) AND
PEOPLE
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW ACTUALLY SAID (which opened up the door to
abuse).
THEY HAD TO GO BY WHAT THE SCRIBES AND LAWYERS SAID (which was all twisted
by Satan).
AGAIN, HOW DID SATAN COME AFTER JESUS?
BY TEMPTING JESUS WITH PERVERSE LEGALISM, QUOTING THE WORD, BUT ABERRANTLY
SO.
Let me know when you get a clue.
Ike
ibid. As I said, there's a difference between having a clue
what the Bible says, and having a clue what you're talking
about.
|
You'll notice, ladies and gentlemen, that the FOOL didn't ADDRESS ONE SINGLE
POINT I MADE FROM SCRIPTURE, and then says I "don't have a clue as to what
the Bible says."
Typical Dispensationalist idiot, putting up "HE SAYS" in place of THE WORD
SAYS.
When Satan tempted Jesus, THE BEAST WAS BEING A PERVERSE LEGALIST.
When the Pharisee tempted Jesus, THEY WERE BEING PERVERSE LEGALISTS.
When the prophets speak of the "other" Semites defiling the temple, THEY'RE
SPEAKING OF THEM AS PERVERSE LEGALISTS.
And what SYMBOLIC METAPHOR do the prophets USE for this PERVERSE LEGALISM?
"Beasts of the field" (or, "earth"), were "earth" or "field" represent THE
SEMITES, and "waters" or "seas" THE GENTILES.
Watch carefully as this Psalmist BUILDS A THESIS out of Ezekiel's
ANTITHESIS...
Ps 80:8-15
Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen,
and planted it. Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take
deep root, and it filled the land. The hills were covered with the shadow of
it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. She sent out her
boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river.
Why hast thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass
by the way do pluck her?
The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field
doth devour it.
Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and
behold, and visit this vine, and the vineyard which thy right hand hath
planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself.
It is burned with fire, it is cut down: they perish at the rebuke of thy
countenance.
The "vine out of Egypt" is Israel.
God ran out the heathen, and planted it.
God prepared a "room" for it, that is, the holy temple (on all three levels,
literal, metaphorical, and spiritual).
It took "root" and filled "THE LAND." (Here the metaphor is a positive
symbol for God's "Semites," Israel.)
The "hills" were covered by the "shadow" of it, meaning the surrounding
peoples were overpowered by them.
The "boughs" (i.e. the tribes) themselves became "goodly cedars," i.e. the
tribes became complete nations unto themselves.
She sent "her boughs" unto the "sea" means she expanded all the way to the
lands of the Gentiles.
"And her branches to the River" (the Euphrates) means she overflowed the
OTHER Semites.
Then the negative starts.
A "Hedge" represent boundary lines. In other words, God took away Israel's
"hedges" and let the nations back in.
And THEN what happened?
The "boar of the wood" did waste it, and the "wild beast of the field"
devoured it.
Wild boar of the wood?
Wild beast of the field?
Who was this?
UNCLEAN Arab's from other "trees" and LEGALISTICALLY ATTACHED Arabs from the
"EARTH" which INFILTRATED ISRAEL, as is recorded throughout the Old
Testament (such as the story of Balaam and Barack, or the opponents of the
second temple building who appealed to Ahasuerus). [Ezra 4]
And the last line is an appeal for God to send His "branch" (i.e. "son") to
restore the vine, vinyard, and branch of Israel, as declared in the rest of
the Psalm.
Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, UPON THE SON OF MAN whom
thou madest strong for thyself. So will not we go back from thee: quicken
us, and we will call upon thy name.
Turn us again, O LORD God of hosts, cause thy face to shine; and we
shall be saved.
Of course, we haven't dealth with the issue of the multiple contexts (the
loss of Solomon's temple versus the loss of the second temple versus the
conflict to come), but that pretty much SUMS UP how the PROPHETS used the
symbols, CONSISTENTLY, throughout the LEGIT books of prophets.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
clamato
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:58 pm Post subject: Re: # SEXUAL LIFE IN THE PARADISE ? # |
|
|
On Nov 1, 7:51 am, Randy ® <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 03:36:27 -0500,
in article <geh4ee$2r...@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvsmg41pmgtb1nluquh7j58iddi5t5kp3n@4ax.com...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:14:52 -0500,
in article <geeiaf$9k...@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ll2jg4pcg70jbgrf1okbdd5m4nhobceouc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:31:25 -0500,
in article <gebgrg$dv...@reader.motzarella.org>,
"Ike" <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com> wrote:
[Trim to point]
There's a difference between having a clue what the Bible
says, and having a clue about what you want it to mean.
I quoted a passage of Scripture that directly equates the
_licentious_ with beasts.
YEAH...FROM A BOOK THAT DOESN'T EVEN BELONG IN THE BIBLE, THAT STANDS
ALONE
AGAINST ALL THE PROPHETS.
What an idiot.
So you admit then, that your theology doesn't work, if the
content between the gospels and Revelation is Scripture?
Bub, NOBODY'S "Theology" works WITH THE CONTENT BETWEEN THE GOSPELS AND
REVELATION when they READ WHAT THE CONTENT ACTUALLY SAYS, like the author
of
2 Peter equating THE END OF THE AGE and THE END OF THE WORLD.
Did you know that the KJV translators translated "aeon" as "world" ON
PURPOSE because they were AMILLENNIALISTS?
So, in fact, they DIDN'T see any conflict between 2 Peter and Revelation
(et
al.) BECAUSE THEIR THEOLOGY was SCREWED UP TO BEGIN WITH. (And still is.)
But once one interprets Jesus' statements the RIGHT way, using "age"
instead
of "world," IT BECOMES GLARINGLY EVIDENT THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH 2
PETER.
Of course, morons don't pay attention to the details, so they don't SEE
that
there is a CONFLICT between the GOSPELS AND REVELATION versus 2 PETER.
(Which actually takes us to were the problem began, the canonization of
the
NEW TESTAMENT ITSELF, in which the "authorities" DID NOT KEEP TO HARD AND
FAST RULES, as the Jews did in their canonization process.)
HERE.
TRY THIS.
GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE.
Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which
the
LORD God had made.
WHICH ONE WAS HE, moron?
A SERPENT (i.e A REPTILE) or A BEAST OF THE FIELD (i.e. A MAMMAL)?
ANSWER: NEITHER ONE, idiot boy--THEY'RE METAPHORS.
Now, if only you had claimed legalists are serpents <snicker>.
???
Another asinine statement from Randy.
THERE WERE TWO METAPHORS IN THE SAME STATEMENT: "SERPENT" AND "BEAST OF
THE
FIELD."
The prophetic metaphor "SERPENTS" is always used for "IDOLATERS."
The prophetic metaphor "BEASTS OF THE FIELD" is always used for
"LEGALISTS."
Satan was A SERPENT because the creature was A SELF-GLORIFYING,
SELF-WORSHIPPING LIAR.
Satan was THE MOST SUBTLE "BEAST OF THE FIELD"
It doesn't say he was the most subtle beast of the field. It
says he was more subtle than any beast of the field. That's a
contrast, not an equation.
No, that's an ASININE STATEMENT is what it is.
IF SATAN WAS MORE SUBTLE THAN ANY BEAST OF THE FIELD WHICH GOD HAD MADE,
THEN SATAN WAS THE MOST SUBTLE BEAST OF THE FIELD.
For example:
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because
thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and
above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go,
and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
That verse says the serpent was cursed above all cattle. Does
that then necessitate serpents are a form of cattle? No, it's
a contrast, not an equation.
NO, IT'S A METAPHOR, NOT A LITERALISM, dumbass.
SATAN WAS THE MOST "LEGALISTIC," HENCE, THE MOST "SUBTLE" OF THE "BEASTS
OF
THE FIELDS," AND WAS CURSED ABOVE ALL OTHERS.
THEY'RE NOT LITERAL STATEMENTS, moron--THEY'RE METAPHORS.
It's the licentious the Bible likens to beasts.
HEY, MORON: WHAT IS "LICENTIOUSNESS" BUT A FORM OF "LEGALISM?"
WHEN SATAN TRICKED EVE, HE INVITED HER TO "TAKE LICENSE" WITH THE LAW BY
REPLACING IT WITH SATAN'S OWN VERSION OF THE LAW.
Your gospel
is a licentious gospel, just like the Bible warns against:
HORSESHIT!
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAS LICENSE!
NOW YOU'RE JUST DROPPING MORE FALSE ACCUSATIONS, SATAN, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
DISPROVE MY STATEMENTS OR PROVE YOURS!
Jud 1:4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about
long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless
men, who change the grace of our God into a license for
immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAD LICENSE TO BREAK THE LAW, SATAN?
That's why you try to play off legalism, as if the real gospel
is a license to sin.
???
HORSESHIT.
WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANYONE HAS LICENSE TO BREAK THE LAW, SATAN?
the creature KNEW HOW
TO MISHANDLE THE LAW, which is PRECISELY WHAT THE "BEAST" DID TO EVE IN
THE
VERY NEXT PASSAGE...
ibid.
ONCE AGAIN, RANDY MAKES ANOTHER ASININE STATEMENT.
SATAN IS A LAWYER, jackass. SATAN KNOWS PRECISELY HOW TO TAKE THE LAW AND
TWIST IT TO WORK THE WAY THE BEAST WANTS.
THAT'S A FORM OF "LEGALISM."
You are falsely claiming the passage equates the
serpent with a "beast", when in fact it contrasts him with the
beasts.
WHAT AN IDIOT.
THEY'RE METAPHORS, MORON.
SERPENT for SELF-GLORIFYING IDOLATER.
"BEAST OF THE FIELD" FOR "LEGALIST."
Gen 3:1a-5
|
| |
