| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: Re: chilton runs away form his lies |
 |
|
On 21 Aug 2008 17:11:52 GMT,
Ray Fischer -- CRIMINAL-coddler and Liar <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
| Quote: | (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction! <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer -- CRIMINAL-coddler and Liar <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote...
|
| Quote: | ... NOTHING sensible or truthful. Except for this ONE
point:
Let's see what the coward is running away from, what he
can't refute or deny:
|
[[[ READERS: Whe you read my response to him on this,
earlier (and repeated, farther down), you'll see just how
DISHONEST he persists in being. ]]]
| Quote: | ------------------------------
AGAIN you ignore the fact that the large number of "illegal"
immigrants who overstay visas are not criminals under any law.
Wrong.
Stop lying.
You just stated that breaking the law makes a person a criminal.
Therefore you are a criminal.
|
Your stupidity is exceeded only, apparently, by a profound lack of
intelligence on your part. Intellegent people don't self-destruct in
public, constantly, as you do.
| Quote: | In another post, I pointed out to you that this IS breaking a
law (or laws), but those do not carry criminal penalties.
Neither does overstaying a visa.
|
Overstaying a visa is what I was just referring to. Do try to
keep up.
| Quote: | Therefore you are a liar for claiming that all "illegal" immigrants
are criminals.
|
See my complete response to you below -- which CONTAINS all
of the portions that you DISHONESTLY **omitted**
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On 21 Aug 2008 03:51:39 GMT,
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
... NOTHING sensible or truthful. Except for this ONE
point:
| Quote: | AGAIN you ignore the fact that the large number of "illegal"
immigrants who overstay visas are not criminals under any law.
|
Wrong. In another post, I pointed out to you that this
IS breaking a law (or laws), but those do not carry criminal
penalties as do the ones I cited that govern SNEAKING
into the country.
For the most part, all that can happen to them is deporta-
tion. BUT -- for returning ILLEGALLY while still forbidden to
do so -- THAT is a FELONY. And more than 30% of deported
ILLEGAL aliens, per CNN, *do* just that. MAKING instant
felons of themselves.
Previous post, to which NO other sensible responses were
made, follows:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
On 21 Aug 2008 02:36:30 GMT,
Ray Fischer -- CRIMINAL-coddler and Liar <fischer@sonic.net> wrote:
| Quote: | (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction! <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
|
[[[ READERS: I probably *should* have simply ignored
this utterly MORONIC post by Ray, and deleted it from
my newsreader. But THEN I realized -- What FUN I
would be missing by doing that. Since Ray's idiocies
in here are SO profound, it'll be productive for me to
PROVE it (again!) to everyone.
When you see any of my text that's enclosed in double
brackets, that is RESTORED text which Ray has
dishonestly omitted. Something he does habitually,
so as to try to twist his opponents meanings. He's
so dense, he still hasn't figured out that I *never*
let him get away with that. You'll see that he did
a LOT of this in THIS... er... "response." ]]]
| Quote: | Which are you? The priest or the Levite?
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into
the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him
and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be
going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by
on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and
saw him, passed by on the other side.
Luke 10:30-32
I would be analogous to the Samaritan... whom you dishonestly
OMITTED when you cited only PART of that parable. In 21st
century terms, an egalitarian who defends personal liberties against
bigotry and stupidity.
The Samaritan, who took the person in and helped him, is like you
who wants to drive people out and make them suffer?
NO driving them out, and NO forcing them to suffer. [[ They SNEAKED
into the country in violation of federal laws, so it's time for them to
return HOME again. On their own hook. As easy as that. No deporta-
tions necessary. And recently, the government gave them a free pass
to do that voluntarily, without penalty. ]]
|
Interestingly, those criminals are SO dishonest that as of yesterday,
according to CNN, only SIX of them (out of up to 20 million!) had done
that.
<lie-snip>
Oh? You mean the way YOU do when you dishonestly OMIT
**relevant** text, as you did above... without even making so
much as a <snip> notation? You'd be FUNNY, Ray, if you just
weren't do damned pathetically ignorant.
Not only was the comment of yours IRrelevant, but it also
was an outright LIE, so I did you a favor by snipping it. And,
you'll notice that *I* -- unlike you -- USED a <snip> notation.
| Quote: | Again and again you say that you want to force "illegal"
immigrants to leave. Now you claim otherwise.
First of all:
First of all, you are a lying, two-faced, hypocritiical, bigot.
|
[[[ READERS: I left that in so you can easily see for
yourself how monumental a liar he is. ]]]
| Quote: | (1) They are ILLEGAL aliens. No quotation marks. [[ They
are very *literally* ILLEGAL-alien criminals, who SNEAKED
into the country in violation of federal law. ]]
You're claim is proven to be a lie.
|
Wrong again! HERE are the Federal Laws that those SNEAKS
violate several of, depending upon how they do it. So you LIED
again because I have presented these to many times before -- and
as recently as just a day or two ago:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title8/chapter12_subchapterii_partviii_.html
| Quote: | (2) They are NOT "immigrants." [[ IMMIGRANTS are the
HONEST people who came into the USA *legally.*
Your calling scumbag ILLEGAL aliens "immigrants" is an
insult to tens of millions of millions of HONEST people. ]]
YTOu fascists NEED to redefine words to justify your agenda of hate.
|
Was that a typo, or evidence that you were frothing at the mouth
as you wrote that moronic lie?
There was NO redefinition. The difference between IMMIGRANTS
and ILLEGAL-ALIEN criminals is clear as crystal to ALL people having a
modicum of intelligence. And defending the millions of legal immigrants
who EARNED their status by obeying the law and following the rules,
by CODDLING criminals the way YOU do is precisely the OPPOSITE
of an agenda of hate. YOU are the hateful one, because you don't
give a rat's ass for LEGAL *immigrants*.
| Quote: | Then:
(3) I have never claimed to want to "force" the illegals
out. To the contrary, I advocate NO prosecution of
them, or deportations solely for their having SNEAKED
in. My proposed law would impose mandatory heavy
fines and imprisonment on the morons who flout the
law by *hiring* and/or *retaining* ILLEGAL aliens.
Thus forcing them to leave the country.
|
That all depends on how creative they are. They were, after
all, creative enough to SNEAK *in* to the country. And did you know
that just this evening, OBAMA just came out and specified in no
uncertain terms that the laws against EMPLOYING *illegal* aliens
should be strictly enforced. SO MUCH for you thinking that seeking
that is a Republican idea. Obama is the DEMOCRATIC presumptive
nominee for President. That blows YOUR stupidity clear out of the
water.
| Quote: | [[ Any ILLEGAL alien who finds he can keep living here
without eating or paying rent could feel free to stay,
with NO threat of prosecution. (It might even work
out for a handful who have American sugar daddies.) ]]
Dumbshit.
|
You most certainly are. And you are so GOOD at *proving* it!
Constantly.
| Quote: | (4) There is NO EXCUSE for being an ILLEGAL alien.
Yes, you racist bigot, there is.
|
Really? Isn't it INTERESTING, then, that you have NEVER
been able to back that up? (And I remind you that since you TRASH
the hard work of the LEGAL immigrants, that makes YOU the bigot.)
| Quote: | They SNEAKED into the country in violation of federal laws, ...
So you're like the pharisees with their worship of rules and laws.
No.
LIAR!
|
99.9999% on the Irony Meter. Particularly since I, unlike
you, make a point of NEVER lying in my posts.
| Quote: | Jesus was no Pharisee, [[ and he recognized the value of
laws, as embodied in the Ten Commandments. The laws against
ILLEGAL immigration are very SENSIBLE laws. ]]
YOU'RE NOT JESUS, YOU STINKING HYPOCRITE!
|
I don't recall making any such claim. And as a Christian,
I *do* put full stock in everything in the Bible that HE said.
| Quote: | [[ ...so it's time for them to return HOME again. On their
own hook.
So you DO want to force them to leave.
Nope. Any of them that can get along without money can
feel free to stay. ]]
|
[[[ Since Ray was OFF-topic for this thread -- something he
makes a HABIT of -- I'll also post this in a thread of its
own that is ON this Illegal Alien topic. ]]]
As a reminder to the Readers, I'm providing the SIG below that
you have never been able to disprove or refute ANY part of. ---
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
FACTS about ILLEGAL Aliens
(1) ILLEGAL aliens did not belong here in the FIRST place.
(2) Federal laws prohibit undocumented entry into the USA.
(3) Federal laws STRICTLY prohibit WORKING in the USA without
proper and legal documentation (such as a Green Card.)
(4) Every ILLEGAL alien is a CRIMINAL by default, for entering
illegally, and even MORE of one if WORKING here.
(5) Throughout our history, tens of millions of people have
worked HARD to EARN residency and citizenship here.
(a) CRIMINALS should NEVER be *rewarded* for being
criminals.
(b) According LEGAL status to ILLEGAL, criminal aliens
without their INSTEAD applying for it through proper
channels and EARNING it would be a massive **insult**
to the millions who did it the RIGHT and LEGAL way.
(6) Urge your Congressperson to SUPPORT H.R. 1940.
More information:
http://apifar.blogspot.com/2008/01/almost-all-of-usas-14-million-illegal.html
If the URL doesn't work, combine its components,
below, in your browser:
http://
apifar.blogspot.com/
2008/01/almost-all-of-usas-14-million-illegal.html
And here's a real EYE-OPENER!! --
http://www.immigrationcounters.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:15 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5dma4tsbrqnep4gv6lafnv64mlm1e0i1h@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:50:10 -0500,
in article <g8eq3l$m11$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
WHICH CAME ABOUT BECAUSE ABEL'S SACRIFICE WAS ACCEPTABLE, AND CAIN'S WAS
NOT.
Because of faith in a substitutionary atonement (lamb/Christ),
instead of the fruit of your own labors.
|
Moron: GOD TOLD CAIN NOT TO DO.
HE DID IT ANYWAY.
Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not
well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou
shalt rule over him.
| Quote: | You are like Cain,
trusting in your "fruits", trying to take credit for God's
work, instead of relying on the Lamb, alone, for salvation.
|
Moron: CAIN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAIN'S SIN, NOT GOD.
(But you liars have no qualms about making God the criminal.)
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:9qqpa4h3q1kna09ual63i1tg76pc5bg5uv@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:50:46 -0500,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
[ ... ]
... oh, clueless one.
Let's see if I have this straight. YOU take FABLES seriously,
and then call OTHER people clueless?
That the story is PROPHETICALLY WRITTEN does NOT make it a "FABLE."
"Prophetically written?" There was nothing prophetic about it.
|
Guess again, oh, clueless one...
God used THE SAME SYMBOLIC WORDS in the SECOND GENESIS ACCOUNT that He used
TO TELL PETER TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE GENTILES (which is what the story
is REALLY about--the conflict between THE NATURAL BEAST and the SUPERNATURAL
CREATION OF GOD, i.e. the TWO "SEEDS" in the story).
| Quote: | It
was written in the PAST tense.
|
Which has nothing to do with anything, oh, clueless one.
| Quote: | And Moses (IF he was its author) was
on a pretty good par with Aesop -- when it came to writing FABLES.
|
Actually, EZEKIEL probably wrote the second Genesis account during the
Babylonian captivity, AS IT IS HE WHO DEFINES ITS TERMS.
| Quote: | It would be nonsesnical to take it literally -- but like all good
fables, it DOES teach some good points of morality.
|
Idiot: It is neither LITERAL nor FABLE--IT'S PROPHECY.
Cattle.
Creeping things.
Beasts of the field.
Fowls of the air.
THEY'RE ALL DESIGNATIONS FOR THE GENTILES, WHO WERE "THE GARDEN OF EDEN,"
putz.
THIS is the REAL STORY BEHIND THE STORY...
Eze 31:3-9
Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with
a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick
boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her
rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto
all the trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the
trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became
long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his
branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under
his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in
the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were
not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor
any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: SO THAT ALL THE
TREES OF EDEN, THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD, envied him.
WHAT ARE "TREES," OH, CLUELESS ONE?
WHAT ARE "WATERS," OH, IGNORANT ONE?
WHAT ARE "BRANCHES" AND "BOUGHS," OH, SILLY PERSON?
SINCE WHEN DO "TREES" ENVY, OH, ANAL ONE?
AND HOW DO "ALL GREAT NATIONS" LOUNGE UNDER ONE "TREE" AT THE SAME TIME?
(Man, you're dumber than the people you attack, oh, Satanic one.)
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:44 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:s-Odna9Aa9sNOzDVnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@earthlink.com...
| Quote: | "Aion" is an indeterminate period of time that could be a few days or a
thousand years.
|
WRONG.
Aion = an age.
Aioinas = all times future.
Aionon = all times past.
Aionios (also Aionion) = ALL TIMES PAST AND FUTURE.
AIONIOS IS THE WORD TRANSLATED "EVERLASTING" IN BOTH STATEMENTS, moron.
kai apeleusontai outoi ein KOLASIN AIONION oi de dekaioi ein ZOEN AIONION.
KOLSAIN AIONION = ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
ZOEN AIONION = ETERNAL LIFE.
SAME ADJECTIVE, idiot.
| Quote: | "Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion."
|
MEANING "ALL TIMES PAST AND FUTURE," AND TRANSLATED "ETERNAL" IN BOTH
INSTANCES, moron--IN THE POSITIVE AND THE NEGATIVE.
| Quote: | THE SAME TERM APPEARS TWICE IN THE TEXT.
kolasin aionion MEANS "PUNISHMENT ETERNAL."
zoen ainonion MEANS "LIFE ETERNAL."
THERE'S NO MISTRANSLATION TO IT, fraud.
Yes there is, on your part.
|
I JUST PUT IT IN FRONT OF YOU, PLAIN AS DAY.
TRY LEARNING TO THE READ THE TEXTS INSTEAD OF LETTING OTHER LIARS TELL YOU
LIES YOU WANT TO HEAR.
IT'S THE EXACT SAME ADJECTIVE, USED IN BOTH THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, IN
THE SAME VERSE.
IF THERE'S NO "ETERNAL PUNISHMENT," THAN THERE IS NO "ETERNAL LIFE,"
IDIOT--IT'S THE SAME WORD.
KOLASIN AIONION.
ZOEN AIONION.
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment [KOLASIN
AIONION]: but the righteous into life eternal [ZOEN AIONION].
NOW, YOU MIND EXPLAINING HOW IT CAN BE ONE ONE TIME AND NOT ONE THE OTHER
TIME IN THE SAME VERSE?
HOW ABOUT IN THE SAME BOOK?
[snip the rest of the idiot's blathering which reveals the extent of his
homemade lies]
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Randy ®
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:07 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:15:14 -0500,
in article <g8kick$2u7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5dma4tsbrqnep4gv6lafnv64mlm1e0i1h@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:50:10 -0500,
in article <g8eq3l$m11$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
WHICH CAME ABOUT BECAUSE ABEL'S SACRIFICE WAS ACCEPTABLE, AND CAIN'S WAS
NOT.
Because of faith in a substitutionary atonement (lamb/Christ),
instead of the fruit of your own labors.
Moron: GOD TOLD CAIN NOT TO DO.
HE DID IT ANYWAY.
Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not
well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou
shalt rule over him.
You are like Cain,
trusting in your "fruits", trying to take credit for God's
work, instead of relying on the Lamb, alone, for salvation.
Moron: CAIN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAIN'S SIN, NOT GOD.
(But you liars have no qualms about making God the criminal.)
Ike
|
No, liar, that God is sovereign in the election of sinners for
salvation, and that you cannot resist His will, does not make
Him the author of your sin, or unjust (Romans 9).
--
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 |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:35 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:25:02 -0500,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
|
[ ... ]
| Quote: | ... oh, clueless one.
Let's see if I have this straight. YOU take FABLES seriously,
and then call OTHER people clueless?
That the story is PROPHETICALLY WRITTEN does NOT make it a "FABLE."
"Prophetically written?" There was nothing prophetic about it.
Guess again...
God used THE SAME SYMBOLIC WORDS in the SECOND GENESIS ACCOUNT
that He used TO TELL PETER TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE GENTILES (which
is what the story is REALLY about--the conflict between THE NATURAL BEAST
and the SUPERNATURAL CREATION OF GOD, i.e. the TWO "SEEDS" in the story).
It was written in the PAST tense.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
|
It does if you're going to call it "prophetic" Prophecies predict
*future* events.
| Quote: | And Moses (IF he was its author) was on a pretty good par with
Aesop -- when it came to writing FABLES.
Actually, EZEKIEL probably wrote the second Genesis account during the
Babylonian captivity, AS IT IS HE WHO DEFINES ITS TERMS.
|
Just a quick aside. When a person capitalizes words to stress them as
one would normally do when speaking, that's perfectly sensible. But when
a person types entire sentences and paragraphs all in caps, that is
"shouting," and looks highly immature. Just so you know. It's hard to
take a person seriously when he shouts as much as you do.
And -- for your sake -- I deleted your childish insults. Otherwise,
**I** would be unable to take you seriously.
That said (please take it as constructive criticism) -- MY reference
was to the Genesis account, and I think the writing of that has been
accepted by most as being attributable to Moses.
| Quote: | It would be nonsesnical to take it literally -- but like all good
fables, it DOES teach some good points of morality.
It is neither LITERAL nor FABLE -- IT'S PROPHECY.
Cattle.
Creeping things.
Beasts of the field.
Fowls of the air.
THEY'RE ALL DESIGNATIONS FOR THE GENTILES, WHO WERE
"THE GARDEN OF EDEN."
THIS is the REAL STORY BEHIND THE STORY...
Eze 31:3-9
Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with
a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick
boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her
rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto
all the trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the
trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became
long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his
branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under
his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in
the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were
not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor
any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: SO THAT ALL THE
TREES OF EDEN, THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD, envied him.
WHAT ARE "TREES?"
WHAT ARE "WATERS?"
WHAT ARE "BRANCHES" AND "BOUGHS?"
SINCE WHEN DO "TREES" ENVY?"
AND HOW DO "ALL GREAT NATIONS" LOUNGE UNDER ONE "TREE"
AT THE SAME TIME?
|
What we have here clearly is a personification of nature, and
parallels were drawn with Eden. It's not the only time that this was done
in the OT, and this exegesis provided an interesting comment, including
some I what I just said (FROM that exegesis):
* * * * * * * * * *
In Ezekiel 31 and 32, we find a parabolic dirge over the Pharaoh of Egypt,
very similar to the one in Isaiah over the King of Babylon. The same
personification of nature is used to describe the overthrow of Pharaoh by
the king of Babylon. "When it goes down to Sheol I will make the deep
mourn for it, and restrain its river, and many waters shall be stopped; I
will clothe Lebanon in gloom for it and all the trees of the field shall
faint because of it" (Ez 31:15).
The portrayal is highly figurative. The various rulers that in this life
caused great terror, now lie in Sheol, with "their graves round about them"
(Ez 32:26). "They do not lie with the fallen mighty men of old who went
down to Sheol with their weapons of war, whose swords were laid under
their heads, and whose shields are upon their bones" (Ez 32:27). In this
figurative language, the mighty are portrayed as buried in Sheol with their
swords as a pillow under their heads and their shields as a blanket over
their bones. This is hardly a description of souls enjoying the bliss of
paradise or the torment of hell. It is rather a figurative representation
of the humiliation of the grave that awaits those who abuse their power
in this life.
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_106.html
* * * * * * * * * *
Since the Garden of Eden story predated the accounts in Ezekiel
and Isaiah, there wouldn't seem to be anything prophetic about it.
Those writers could have drawn upon previously-written material as
easily as a person writing vampire novels could have gotten some of
his ideas from the Dracula story.
None of this has anything to do with the topic I was discussing. I
was pointing out that the Garden of Eden story had to have been
allegorical, and even YOU just now said that it wasn't literal.
So if YOU don't think it was literal either, what's your point?
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bill Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Thursday 21 August 2008 05:44 pm H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
<xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<g8knkm$6gc$1@registered.motzarella.org>...
| Quote: | "Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:s-Odna9Aa9sNOzDVnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@earthlink.com...
"Aion" is an indeterminate period of time that could be a few days or a
thousand years.
WRONG.
|
RIGHT.
| Quote: | Aion = an age.
Aioinas = all times future.
Aionon = all times past.
Aionios (also Aionion) = ALL TIMES PAST AND FUTURE.
AIONIOS IS THE WORD TRANSLATED "EVERLASTING" IN BOTH STATEMENTS, moron.
|
The translation is wrong.
| Quote: | kai apeleusontai outoi ein KOLASIN AIONION oi de dekaioi ein ZOEN AIONION.
KOLSAIN AIONION = ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
ZOEN AIONION = ETERNAL LIFE.
SAME ADJECTIVE, idiot.
"Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion."
MEANING "ALL TIMES PAST AND FUTURE," AND TRANSLATED "ETERNAL" IN BOTH
INSTANCES, moron--IN THE POSITIVE AND THE NEGATIVE.
|
Impossible. That would mean that people who are alive now have been burning
in hell before they were even born. Face it, you're wrong.
| Quote: | THE SAME TERM APPEARS TWICE IN THE TEXT.
kolasin aionion MEANS "PUNISHMENT ETERNAL."
zoen ainonion MEANS "LIFE ETERNAL."
THERE'S NO MISTRANSLATION TO IT, fraud.
Yes there is, on your part.
I JUST PUT IT IN FRONT OF YOU, PLAIN AS DAY.
|
And you're wrong.
| Quote: | TRY LEARNING TO THE READ THE TEXTS INSTEAD OF LETTING OTHER LIARS TELL YOU
LIES YOU WANT TO HEAR.
IT'S THE EXACT SAME ADJECTIVE, USED IN BOTH THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, IN
THE SAME VERSE.
IF THERE'S NO "ETERNAL PUNISHMENT," THAN THERE IS NO "ETERNAL LIFE,"
IDIOT--IT'S THE SAME WORD.
KOLASIN AIONION.
ZOEN AIONION.
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment [KOLASIN
AIONION]: but the righteous into life eternal [ZOEN AIONION].
NOW, YOU MIND EXPLAINING HOW IT CAN BE ONE ONE TIME AND NOT ONE THE OTHER
TIME IN THE SAME VERSE?
HOW ABOUT IN THE SAME BOOK?
|
If the righteous get eternal life, then it would follow that the unrighteous
don't. Which means that there is no eternal hell where people are tortured
forever because that would mean that they would have to have eternal life
as well.
| Quote: | [snip the rest of the idiot's blathering which reveals the extent of his
homemade lies]
|
Face it, we can go around on this for days and days, but you're not going to
change my mind on this. I already know I'm right. My beliefs suit me and
nothing you say can change that. But kudos for trying. Better people than
you have failed.
--
Bushism 7-15/16:
"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for
predecessors as well."
--Washington, D.C.; January 29, 2001 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2opra49ktjqh36sibkgn6651jh6oir3ntk@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:15:14 -0500,
in article <g8kick$2u7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5dma4tsbrqnep4gv6lafnv64mlm1e0i1h@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:50:10 -0500,
in article <g8eq3l$m11$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
WHICH CAME ABOUT BECAUSE ABEL'S SACRIFICE WAS ACCEPTABLE, AND CAIN'S WAS
NOT.
Because of faith in a substitutionary atonement (lamb/Christ),
instead of the fruit of your own labors.
Moron: GOD TOLD CAIN NOT TO DO.
HE DID IT ANYWAY.
Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest
not
well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou
shalt rule over him.
You are like Cain,
trusting in your "fruits", trying to take credit for God's
work, instead of relying on the Lamb, alone, for salvation.
Moron: CAIN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAIN'S SIN, NOT GOD.
(But you liars have no qualms about making God the criminal.)
Ike
No, liar, that God is sovereign in the election of sinners for
salvation, and that you cannot resist His will, does not make
Him the author of your sin, or unjust (Romans 9).
|
BUT YOU MAKE HIM THE AUTHOR OF SIN, AND UNJUST, THE MOMENT YOU TILT THE
BIBLE WITH YOUR LOP-SIDED "PROOF VERSING" THAT MAKES THE WORD OF GOD A LIE,
AND GOD HIMSELF THE LIAR.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAIN'S SINS?
CAIN, jerk.
GOD DIDN'T DO THAT.
CAIN DID.
HE EXERCISED HIS WILL AND DID IT, WITHOUT ANY HELP OR HINDRANCE FROM GOD.
AND THAT FACT ALONE PROVES YOUR FALSE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINES ARE LIES.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:58sra4100r439j19oldo6qhvfdn7kapkkd@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:25:02 -0500,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
[ ... ]
... oh, clueless one.
Let's see if I have this straight. YOU take FABLES seriously,
and then call OTHER people clueless?
That the story is PROPHETICALLY WRITTEN does NOT make it a "FABLE."
"Prophetically written?" There was nothing prophetic about it.
Guess again...
God used THE SAME SYMBOLIC WORDS in the SECOND GENESIS ACCOUNT
that He used TO TELL PETER TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE GENTILES (which
is what the story is REALLY about--the conflict between THE NATURAL BEAST
and the SUPERNATURAL CREATION OF GOD, i.e. the TWO "SEEDS" in the story).
It was written in the PAST tense.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
It does if you're going to call it "prophetic" Prophecies predict
*future* events.
|
You don't know jack shit about prophecy.
PROPHECY REVEALS PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN INFORMATION, PAST, PRESENT, OR FUTURE,
moron.
THAT'S WHY EZEKIEL MAKES SUCH AN EXERCISE OF PROPHESYING BACKWARD, FORWARD,
AND PRESENTLY ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
LOL
What a marrooooon....
[skipping over the asshole's diatribe]
| Quote: | It would be nonsesnical to take it literally -- but like all good
fables, it DOES teach some good points of morality.
It is neither LITERAL nor FABLE -- IT'S PROPHECY.
Cattle.
Creeping things.
Beasts of the field.
Fowls of the air.
THEY'RE ALL DESIGNATIONS FOR THE GENTILES, WHO WERE
"THE GARDEN OF EDEN."
THIS is the REAL STORY BEHIND THE STORY...
Eze 31:3-9
Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and
with
a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the
thick
boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her
rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers
unto
all the trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all
the
trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches
became
long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his
branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and
under
his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in
the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were
not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches;
nor
any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: SO THAT ALL
THE
TREES OF EDEN, THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD, envied him.
WHAT ARE "TREES?"
WHAT ARE "WATERS?"
WHAT ARE "BRANCHES" AND "BOUGHS?"
SINCE WHEN DO "TREES" ENVY?"
AND HOW DO "ALL GREAT NATIONS" LOUNGE UNDER ONE "TREE"
AT THE SAME TIME?
What we have here clearly is a personification of nature, and
parallels were drawn with Eden.
|
Not "parallels," moron.
Ezekiel was revealing WHAT THE REAL "Garden of Eden" saga was all about, AND
IT DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH LITERAL "FRUIT," oh, clueless one.
| Quote: | It's not the only time that this was done
in the OT, and this exegesis provided an interesting comment, including
some I what I just said (FROM that exegesis):
* * * * * * * * * *
In Ezekiel 31 and 32, we find a parabolic dirge over the Pharaoh of Egypt,
very similar to the one in Isaiah over the King of Babylon. The same
personification of nature is used to describe the overthrow of Pharaoh by
the king of Babylon. "When it goes down to Sheol I will make the deep
mourn for it, and restrain its river, and many waters shall be stopped; I
will clothe Lebanon in gloom for it and all the trees of the field shall
faint because of it" (Ez 31:15).
|
EXCEPT THAT EZEKIEL WAS TAKING THE STORY BACK TO PROTO-ASSYRIA, i.e. ANCIENT
SUMER, which was WERE HE GOT THE ADAPTED STORY FROM--ANCIENT BABYLON (except
Ezekiel took the Assyro-Babylonian mythology, and TURNED IT AGAINST THE
CAPTORS, like the American Negro Spirituals of the Civil War).
| Quote: | The portrayal is highly figurative. The various rulers that in this life
caused great terror, now lie in Sheol, with "their graves round about
them"
(Ez 32:26). "They do not lie with the fallen mighty men of old who went
down to Sheol with their weapons of war, whose swords were laid under
their heads, and whose shields are upon their bones" (Ez 32:27). In this
figurative language, the mighty are portrayed as buried in Sheol with
their
swords as a pillow under their heads and their shields as a blanket over
their bones. This is hardly a description of souls enjoying the bliss of
paradise or the torment of hell. It is rather a figurative representation
of the humiliation of the grave that awaits those who abuse their power
in this life.
|
It is highly figurative, BUT IT'S NOT "MYTHOLOGICAL."
IT'S PROPHETIC, and it has to be READ PROPHETICALLY.
| Quote: | Since the Garden of Eden story predated the accounts in Ezekiel
and Isaiah, there wouldn't seem to be anything prophetic about it.
|
That's because you think prophecy is about PROGNOSTICATION instead of
REVELATION, moron.
| Quote: | Those writers could have drawn upon previously-written material as
easily as a person writing vampire novels could have gotten some of
his ideas from the Dracula story.
None of this has anything to do with the topic I was discussing. I
was pointing out that the Garden of Eden story had to have been
allegorical, and even YOU just now said that it wasn't literal.
|
IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH THE "TOPIC," moron.
THE STORY WAS ABOUT THE RISE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE BEAST MAN and the
SPIRITUAL man, which were the TWO "SEEDS" IN THE GARDEN ALL ALONG.
BUT YOU TRY TO JUSTIFY YOUR BESTIALITY BY BESTIAL (a.ka. ANTICHRISTIAN)
MEANS.
THE ANTICHRISTIAN ANTITHESIS...
"If we say we have no sin, we DECEIVE OURSELVES, and THE TRUTH IS NOT IN
US."
THE CHRISTIAN THESIS....
"But if we CONFESS our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
BY SELF-JUSTIFYING YOUR SINS (while falsely accusing the churches to
boot), YOU SHORT-CIRCUIT THE SALVATION, AND ARE DEAD IN YOUR SINS.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:P6-dnSig_KHZnDPVnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
| Quote: | On Thursday 21 August 2008 05:44 pm H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<g8knkm$6gc$1@registered.motzarella.org>...
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:s-Odna9Aa9sNOzDVnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@earthlink.com...
"Aion" is an indeterminate period of time that could be a few days or
a
thousand years.
WRONG.
RIGHT.
Aion = an age.
Aioinas = all times future.
Aionon = all times past.
Aionios (also Aionion) = ALL TIMES PAST AND FUTURE.
AIONIOS IS THE WORD TRANSLATED "EVERLASTING" IN BOTH STATEMENTS, moron.
The translation is wrong.
|
MORON: THE TRANSLATION CAN'T BE RIGHT GOING ONE WAY, AND WRONG GOING THE
OTHER WAY.
AIONION MEANS "ETERNAL" IN BOTH INSTANCES.
| Quote: | kai apeleusontai outoi ein KOLASIN AIONION oi de dekaioi ein ZOEN
AIONION.
KOLSAIN AIONION = ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
ZOEN AIONION = ETERNAL LIFE.
SAME ADJECTIVE, idiot.
"Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion."
MEANING "ALL TIMES PAST AND FUTURE," AND TRANSLATED "ETERNAL" IN BOTH
INSTANCES, moron--IN THE POSITIVE AND THE NEGATIVE.
Impossible.
|
What an idiot.
kai apeleusontai outoi ein KOLASIN AIONION oi de dekaioi ein ZOEN AIONION.
SAME ADJECTIVE.
SAME MEANING.
AIONION = ETERNAL...BOTH TIMES, moron.
| Quote: | That would mean that people who are alive now have been burning
in hell before they were even born.
|
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK.
THAT'S WHAT "ETERNAL" MEANS--ALL TIMES PAST, ALL TIMES PRESENT, AND ALL
TIMES FUTURE, i.e. IT IS A PERPENDICULAR STATE OF EXISTENCE WITHOUT
BEGINNING OR END...IN HEAVEN, AND IN HELL.
| Quote: | Face it, you're wrong.
|
No, YOU don't KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THAT'S the only thing that anyone has to "face."
| Quote: | THE SAME TERM APPEARS TWICE IN THE TEXT.
kolasin aionion MEANS "PUNISHMENT ETERNAL."
zoen ainonion MEANS "LIFE ETERNAL."
THERE'S NO MISTRANSLATION TO IT, fraud.
Yes there is, on your part.
I JUST PUT IT IN FRONT OF YOU, PLAIN AS DAY.
And you're wrong.
|
What a moron.
kai apeleusontai outoi ein KOLASIN AIONION oi de dekaioi ein ZOEN AIONION.
IF IT'S NOT "ETERNAL" IN ONE PLACE, THEN IT'S NOT "ETERNAL" IN THE OTHER
PLACE, AND VICE VERSA, idiot.
| Quote: | TRY LEARNING TO THE READ THE TEXTS INSTEAD OF LETTING OTHER LIARS TELL
YOU
LIES YOU WANT TO HEAR.
IT'S THE EXACT SAME ADJECTIVE, USED IN BOTH THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, IN
THE SAME VERSE.
IF THERE'S NO "ETERNAL PUNISHMENT," THAN THERE IS NO "ETERNAL LIFE,"
IDIOT--IT'S THE SAME WORD.
KOLASIN AIONION.
ZOEN AIONION.
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment [KOLASIN
AIONION]: but the righteous into life eternal [ZOEN AIONION].
NOW, YOU MIND EXPLAINING HOW IT CAN BE ONE ONE TIME AND NOT ONE THE OTHER
TIME IN THE SAME VERSE?
HOW ABOUT IN THE SAME BOOK?
If the righteous get eternal life, then it would follow that the
unrighteous
don't.
|
NO, THE OPPOSING FORCES ARE ETERNAL LIFE AND ETERNAL DEATH, moron: THERE IS
NO THIRD OPTION STATED ANYWHERE IN THE BOOK.
| Quote: | Which means that there is no eternal hell where people are tortured
forever because that would mean that they would have to have eternal life
as well.
|
THAT'S ALL SELF-RATIONALIZATION WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT
THE BOOK ACTUALLY SAYS.
SAME ADJECTIVE.
SAME MEANING.
| Quote: | [snip the rest of the idiot's blathering which reveals the extent of his
homemade lies]
Face it, we can go around on this for days and days, but you're not going
to
change my mind on this.
|
BECAUSE YOU'VE FULLY EMBRACED FANCIFUL, PLEASANT SOUNDING LIES INSTEAD OF
GOING BY WHAT THE WORD SAYS.
| Quote: | I already know I'm right.
|
YOU DON'T "KNOW" ANY SUCH THING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE TEXTS SPECIFICALLY
PROVE YOU WRONG.
| Quote: | My beliefs suit me and
nothing you say can change that. But kudos for trying. Better people
than
you have failed.
|
IT'S YOU WHO IS FAILING YOURSELF, moron.
I PUT THE PLAIN FACTS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
NOW, IF YOU WANT TO FOOL YOURSELF, AND SAY YOU "BELIEVE" SOMETHING THAT IS
AN OBVIOUS LIE, GO RIGHT AHEAD...
....BUT YOU'VE BEEN WELL TOLD.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:23:06 -0500, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote...
... a massive conglomeration of immature and
unsubstantiated insults, and childish "shouts."
Get back to me if you ever decide to grow up.
Until then, you'd be just a waste of time.
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome Agendas:
Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:grhta4tecvnt1loj801bj2tder61am592c@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:23:06 -0500, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote...
... a massive conglomeration of immature and
unsubstantiated insults, and childish "shouts."
Get back to me if you ever decide to grow up.
Until then, you'd be just a waste of time.
|
Translation: "Ike told the truth about me, and I don't want to hear it."
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bill Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Friday 22 August 2008 09:34 am H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
<xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<g8mf8u$j6n$1@registered.motzarella.org>...
| Quote: | "Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:P6-dnSig_KHZnDPVnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
On Thursday 21 August 2008 05:44 pm H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:<g8knkm$6gc$1@registered.motzarella.org>...
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:s-Odna9Aa9sNOzDVnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@earthlink.com...
"Aion" is an indeterminate period of time that could be a few days or
a
thousand years.
WRONG.
RIGHT.
Aion = an age.
Aioinas = all times future.
Aionon = all times past.
Aionios (also Aionion) = ALL TIMES PAST AND FUTURE.
AIONIOS IS THE WORD TRANSLATED "EVERLASTING" IN BOTH STATEMENTS, moron.
The translation is wrong.
MORON: THE TRANSLATION CAN'T BE RIGHT GOING ONE WAY, AND WRONG GOING THE
OTHER WAY.
AIONION MEANS "ETERNAL" IN BOTH INSTANCES.
|
No it doesn't.
| Quote: | kai apeleusontai outoi ein KOLASIN AIONION oi de dekaioi ein ZOEN
AIONION.
KOLSAIN AIONION = ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
ZOEN AIONION = ETERNAL LIFE.
SAME ADJECTIVE, idiot.
"Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion."
MEANING "ALL TIMES PAST AND FUTURE," AND TRANSLATED "ETERNAL" IN BOTH
INSTANCES, moron--IN THE POSITIVE AND THE NEGATIVE.
Impossible.
What an idiot.
|
Yes, you are.
| Quote: | kai apeleusontai outoi ein KOLASIN AIONION oi de dekaioi ein ZOEN AIONION.
SAME ADJECTIVE.
SAME MEANING.
AIONION = ETERNAL...BOTH TIMES, moron.
|
Nope.
| Quote: | That would mean that people who are alive now have been burning
in hell before they were even born.
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK.
THAT'S WHAT "ETERNAL" MEANS--ALL TIMES PAST, ALL TIMES PRESENT, AND ALL
TIMES FUTURE, i.e. IT IS A PERPENDICULAR STATE OF EXISTENCE WITHOUT
BEGINNING OR END...IN HEAVEN, AND IN HELL.
|
Which is why I said it's impossible.
| Quote: | Face it, you're wrong.
No, YOU don't KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THAT'S the only thing that anyone has to "face."
|
You're the one who has proved himself to be a complete kook.
| Quote: | THE SAME TERM APPEARS TWICE IN THE TEXT.
kolasin aionion MEANS "PUNISHMENT ETERNAL."
zoen ainonion MEANS "LIFE ETERNAL."
THERE'S NO MISTRANSLATION TO IT, fraud.
Yes there is, on your part.
I JUST PUT IT IN FRONT OF YOU, PLAIN AS DAY.
And you're wrong.
What a moron.
|
Yes, you are.
| Quote: | kai apeleusontai outoi ein KOLASIN AIONION oi de dekaioi ein ZOEN AIONION.
IF IT'S NOT "ETERNAL" IN ONE PLACE, THEN IT'S NOT "ETERNAL" IN THE OTHER
PLACE, AND VICE VERSA, idiot.
|
It's not "eternal" in either place, moron.
| Quote: | TRY LEARNING TO THE READ THE TEXTS INSTEAD OF LETTING OTHER LIARS TELL
YOU
LIES YOU WANT TO HEAR.
IT'S THE EXACT SAME ADJECTIVE, USED IN BOTH THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE,
IN THE SAME VERSE.
IF THERE'S NO "ETERNAL PUNISHMENT," THAN THERE IS NO "ETERNAL LIFE,"
IDIOT--IT'S THE SAME WORD.
KOLASIN AIONION.
ZOEN AIONION.
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment [KOLASIN
AIONION]: but the righteous into life eternal [ZOEN AIONION].
NOW, YOU MIND EXPLAINING HOW IT CAN BE ONE ONE TIME AND NOT ONE THE
OTHER TIME IN THE SAME VERSE?
HOW ABOUT IN THE SAME BOOK?
If the righteous get eternal life, then it would follow that the
unrighteous
don't.
NO, THE OPPOSING FORCES ARE ETERNAL LIFE AND ETERNAL DEATH, moron: THERE
IS NO THIRD OPTION STATED ANYWHERE IN THE BOOK.
|
That's what I said. The unrighteous do not get eternal life.
| Quote: | Which means that there is no eternal hell where people are tortured
forever because that would mean that they would have to have eternal life
as well.
THAT'S ALL SELF-RATIONALIZATION WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH
WHAT THE BOOK ACTUALLY SAYS.
SAME ADJECTIVE.
SAME MEANING.
|
So there is no eternal hell where people get tortured for eternity. QED.
| Quote: | [snip the rest of the idiot's blathering which reveals the extent of his
homemade lies]
Face it, we can go around on this for days and days, but you're not going
to
change my mind on this.
BECAUSE YOU'VE FULLY EMBRACED FANCIFUL, PLEASANT SOUNDING LIES INSTEAD OF
GOING BY WHAT THE WORD SAYS.
|
No, because I've embraced the truth.
| Quote: | I already know I'm right.
YOU DON'T "KNOW" ANY SUCH THING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE TEXTS SPECIFICALLY
PROVE YOU WRONG.
|
The texts prove nothing of the sort. And I do know that I'm right with 100%
assurance.
| Quote: | My beliefs suit me and
nothing you say can change that. But kudos for trying. Better people
than
you have failed.
IT'S YOU WHO IS FAILING YOURSELF, moron.
|
Nope.
| Quote: | I PUT THE PLAIN FACTS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
|
No, you just put your beliefs in front of me.
| Quote: | NOW, IF YOU WANT TO FOOL YOURSELF, AND SAY YOU "BELIEVE" SOMETHING THAT IS
AN OBVIOUS LIE, GO RIGHT AHEAD...
...BUT YOU'VE BEEN WELL TOLD.
|
*Chuckle* I don't believe lies. But if you want to believe in the hard
legalism that Jesus preached against, go right ahead.
--
Bushism 4-12:
"We have practically banished religious values and religious institutions
from the public square and constructed a 'discomfort zone' for even
discussing our faith in public settings."
--Milwaukee, Wisconsin; September 9, 2000 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:11:03 -0500,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote...
|
| Quote: | ... a massive conglomeration of immature and
unsubstantiated insults, and childish "shouts."
Get back to me if you ever decide to grow up.
Until then, you'd be just a waste of time.
Translation: "Ike told the truth about me, and I don't
want to hear it."
|
Considering your lunacy, I'll take that as a COMPLIMENT.
Do let us all know if you ever manage to shed your immaturity,
AND come up with any relevant and worthwhile facts.
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Randy ®
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:36 am Post subject: Re: First "contradiction" explained, showing how it's not a |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:05:54 -0500,
in article <g8mdjk$hv6$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2opra49ktjqh36sibkgn6651jh6oir3ntk@4ax.com...
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:15:14 -0500,
in article <g8kick$2u7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5dma4tsbrqnep4gv6lafnv64mlm1e0i1h@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:50:10 -0500,
in article <g8eq3l$m11$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
WHICH CAME ABOUT BECAUSE ABEL'S SACRIFICE WAS ACCEPTABLE, AND CAIN'S WAS
NOT.
Because of faith in a substitutionary atonement (lamb/Christ),
instead of the fruit of your own labors.
Moron: GOD TOLD CAIN NOT TO DO.
HE DID IT ANYWAY.
Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest
not
well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou
shalt rule over him.
You are like Cain,
trusting in your "fruits", trying to take credit for God's
work, instead of relying on the Lamb, alone, for salvation.
Moron: CAIN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAIN'S SIN, NOT GOD.
(But you liars have no qualms about making God the criminal.)
Ike
No, liar, that God is sovereign in the election of sinners for
salvation, and that you cannot resist His will, does not make
Him the author of your sin, or unjust (Romans 9).
BUT YOU MAKE HIM THE AUTHOR OF SIN, AND UNJUST, THE MOMENT YOU TILT THE
BIBLE WITH YOUR LOP-SIDED "PROOF VERSING" THAT MAKES THE WORD OF GOD A LIE,
AND GOD HIMSELF THE LIAR.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAIN'S SINS?
CAIN, jerk.
GOD DIDN'T DO THAT.
CAIN DID.
HE EXERCISED HIS WILL AND DID IT, WITHOUT ANY HELP OR HINDRANCE FROM GOD.
AND THAT FACT ALONE PROVES YOUR FALSE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINES ARE LIES.
Ike
|
Perfect, lying moron. You take the conclusion _YOU_ came to,
which is that if God is sovereign in the salvation of sinners,
electing whom He will, and hardening those whom He will not
for salvation, then that would mean He is to blame for men's
sins, then act like _I'm_ therefore the one blaming God for
men's sins, if I believe He is sovereign!
Thus, you simply confirm what I just said, which is that if
you were to allow that God is sovereign in the salvation of
sinners, you believe that would make God the author of men's
sin! Romans 9 anticipated and refuted your error:
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having
done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to
election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the
younger.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have
I hated.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness
with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I
will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will
have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him
that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this
same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power
in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the
earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy,
and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find
fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against
God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why
hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same
lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto
dishonour?
--
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 |
|
| |
|
