Nighthawk

Morning: Evening: Great all around.

This was talking about baptism, not infant salvation. So you can see how he attempted to shift the focus when his error was shown. The verse, I quoted, by the way, said that the Holy Spirit was the promised seal of salvation, meaning that when you receive the Spirit, it confirms that you are saved. Taken in context with the verse that says the Gentiles could be baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, I have proved salvation without baptism. I don't know what he was trying to say with his first sentence. If niggard is interpreted wrong, it doesn't change the true meaning of the word, which is exactly what I said. And, in English, can be used in an exegetive sense, such as "Did you tighten those screws enough?" "Yeah, they're good and tight.". This has rendered his closing statement impotent, but I should point out that he chose to accept somebody else's opinion in the face of explanation, with no knowledge of his own, and I as I have just shown, got it wrong. This is precisely what's wrong with the so called "rationalist" you generally meet, one of the points of this thread. Here, he has placed infants on the same intellectual level as atheists. While I could make a witty remark, I'l let it speak for itself. It does make sense, unless you're stupid. Here, he has failed to realize that only creating people who will be saved is removing choice, and essentially repeating the angelic creation. He never quite got how killing wasn't such a big deal. The only reason we don't give up sin is because we want to keep it. If a baby has no attachment to sin, there's nothing stopping God from forgiving it. A very short sighted and culturally arrogant statement to begin with. His statement of sin shows that he doesn't know what it is. It's a shame he quit because I'd have liked to see him try to support that most people aren't attached to sin. No, it was supposed to show how they could be sinners without sinning. Note that it's the second time I had to explain that. His other questions become negated by the claim that babies are saved. Here, he has ignored my statements and attacked the elements of them that he was already familiar with, being unable to connect the larger picture. Deserving hell is another thing he never quite understood despite multiple explanations. He couldn't escape the idea of Hell being a place earned by evil deeds, when it was in fact, our natural state, that being, opposed to God. If you don't go to hell, you don't deserve it, because if you did, you would have been sent. The question is, why didn't you deserve it? It's a valid question because it would have to be something quite unusual to be brought out of your natural state of being. Saying you deserve to go to hell is akin to saying you are human. If chaos was still here, he would say "So all humans deserve to go to hell? They never did nothing!" The answer is just out of his grasp. We didn't establish that. Notice how he can appear to have a point by building three or four effects on what is essentially a lie? Notice here how he changed to personally attacking me when he had no valid argument left. For the record, I never claimed to care about babies at all, I made an observation based on my greater life experience. Also see how he attempted to explain how I couldn't understand that it was no big deal when a baby dies because I don't care about babies. One of the shining lowlights of chaosrage, and he has had many. Hey, he admitted that I have a point. Marvelous. Shame he has to undermine it with stubborn ministrations. Actually, the quote was "he that believeth not" or "does not believe", which is a conscious act, ie rejection, what I have said all along. And furthermore, putting this aside, his response didn't address what I said at all. He proved his own point wrong. See how he changed it from good works into perfection? He's quick, but I'm quicker. Now that this argument's shot down, he's agreed with me. You know, I could demonstrate the proper interpretation of each of those verses, and I'm really tempted to, because it's fun, but the fact remains that this changes absolutely nothing. Just take what I said about James and say the same thing about all those verses. Most of those verses are talking about something completely different though. But nobody believes in God but doesn't do good works. That was James' point. The rebuttal to his ridiculous objection can be seen above. Adam and Eve weren't babies, for one, and this analogy is just getting silly. God did not "put them on a stove and put the burner on", he told them not to eat from one tree. One tree in the whole garden. Notice also that they didn't have any intention of doing so until they had dealt with the serpent. Notice that Eve tells the serpent that she's not going to eat because God said not too. There goes the idea that they didn't know any better. God told them specifically. The serpent told them God had lied. chaos would probably say that they had equal reason to believe God or the serpent... no... I don't think even he's quite that stupid. It's not a baby on a stove. I tried to keep away from the metaphors with chaos because he tended to get lost in them. If God had not allowed any option to sin, he would just be making angels again. He was right about that. He's some idiot who equates the story of Adam and Eve with a baby on a stove. He thinks I said that God and Job had a debate throughout the book. Moses did that... but most of this book is Job saying things that are wrong. And God correcting him. My meaning would be obvious in a conversation among two people who have read the book, which this is, but this shows that he has no interest in debate, he's merely looking for inlines of superficial attack to gloat over and claim victory. See how he pretends that the original point of this quotation doesn't exist? Job says that to die as an infant meant rest, demonstrating that it's not hell. What an idiot. If he didn't want them to go to heaven, he wanted them to go to hell. This is another example of chaos' ignorance of Judaism. "Stop fucking talking about it" is a pretty good rebuttal. I wish I could use that. He's agreed with my point. He knows well I dodged nothing, so he just pretends that I didn't already answer him. Killing is not the same as judging. Interesting yet meaningless observation. Also ignores the mention of animals. Ok, so maybe this wasn't completely obvious to any idiot, but here's the answer: he didn't kill the infants and animals specifically. If God wants to destroy a city, and spares a large group of the people in that city, they will them grow up, commit abominations, rebuild the city and continue to thrive, and God's smiting most of city before accomplished nothing except killing those specific people. He just said that if there's a cival war story with a hobbit in it, the civil war didn't happen. No. Wasn't he just vehemently saying that you couldn't use this logic? If it's supernatural, you couldn't have evidence of it, because that's the nature of the supernatural. I explained that before. It was also a large part of the paragraph he's currently flailing at. I explained this to him as well. The proof for God is spiritual, just like God is a spirit. Then, because that's supernatural, the natural side of the Bible is proven by your experience of God. If it can't be disproved (which it can't be, as my opposition has admitted, albeit under duress, as they came in thinking they could disprove it with ease), that's all the burden required because the starting point has already been gained through experience, unlike other fantastic creatures, which do not, by the way, have anything remotely comparable to the Bible. See how he ignores what I said about the water? He thinks if I said it long enough ago, it doesn't count. This is how stupid people argue. They just go in circles. Again, the Bible's proof is experiential, which is what sets it apart from those other things. Notice how he uses an insulting metaphor and then continues as if that was literally what I said? Also sees how he ignores all the points he conceded and the none I conceded. Look back and see for yourself. That's the same thing. I'd explain it but he's not here to understand.

Thank god he finally quit. Just so it's established, anyone who reads this and thinks chaosrage isn't stupid, speak up. I really want to know. I'll destroy his last few posts and be done with it.

Jealous queers.

No it isn't.

A Korean minister I know suggested I check this fellow out and I found him to be the greatest guitar player of all time, even better than my previous opinion, John McLaughlin. He doesn't seem to be well known, so I wondered if anyone knew about him. If you haven't, go ahead and listen. I think you should buy his albums and not download though, as they're enough of a work of art it's like running off DaVinci on a laser printer.

I see someone voted for Saving Private Ryan. That's not a very good movie. It does have one of the greatest scenes in a movie, the opening, but the whole movie isn't that good.

Jaws. Judge the movies by how well they succeed in their own genre and you'll agree. Schindler's List seems like a good movie, and it is, but it never made anyone afraid to sit on the toilet.

Downhome... invisibilty and force fields aren't real.

The truth is that even though I claimed that these movies all sucked, I never watched any of them. I was too busy having sex and taking drugs, but now that I've given my life to Jesus, perhaps I will watch them all.

I think that you're all idiots.

What is this song called Naked? It's not a Spice Girls cover is it?

Except in that case it would be correct.

Go shoot yourself.

They give the rats their shots first, GOD! What do you think they pick them up out of the sewer?

They all suck.

You guys are losers for remembering.

The Kill At Will EP is also on par with AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted, though you neglect to mention Lethal Injection, which was average at best. Here are my top ten. I like what I like. Del the Funkee Homosapien Kool Keith Shock G Trick Daddy Esham Slick Rick Biggie Brotha Lynch Hung E-40 Tech N9ne

Which is exactly why it's so stupid. I did, so you're wrong about that. The point continues to elude you. If an earthquake isn't bad, someone making it happen doesn't suddenly make it bad. Someone throwing a brick at you isn't "bad" either. What if you threw a brick at someone because you wanted to kill them? Wouldn't it be good? If not, it's because if you were allowed to throw bricks at people, someone might throw one at you. Self preservation, not morals. Well, no, sin did make those things. Read your Bible again. Don't believe anything because you don't know for sure? Don't walk out the door tomorrow! It might be a mirage and your house is really teetering on the edge of a volcano! I don't care what you say, you can't know for SURE! When did I say you couldn't? How's that? I'm warning you now, this is a trap. No matter what you say, I'll prove it wrong. When did I say anything remotely similar to that? I said the only way you can attempt to judge God is by the standards he's allowed. If he's evil and wants you to think he's good, you're going to. Your response to this would be to believe nothing. Feel free, I won't stop you. I don't know why you think everyone's on a crusade to save you. That's retarded. Is it good for children to work in a factory? Is it good for children to send their parents to bed without supper? Is it good for epileptics to play nintendo in front of the christmas tree? Not an opinion, a perspective. An act can be good for one and bad for another, and they are both correct, since neither has prevalence over the other. Hence, there is no right or wrong, since each cancels out the other. You say this like it means something. Someone was wrong once, so now you're wrong? Guess what, one time I argued with a guy that Mountain Dew was better than Mello Yello, and in the end, he admitted I was right. So you've basically admitted I was right. I win. I'll get to the rest of this later. By the way, I see the root of your error. You're a postmodern existentialist, which is leading you invariably toward nihilism (www.dictionary.com). This is as outdated as spontaneous generation. It's sort of cute, really.

Why do you cleverly answer a question nobody asked? 2Pac isn't near the best ever, but Biggie is. Near, though I don't know if he is. His death helped, because he didn't get a chance to fall off like, oh... Ice Cube.

Worst movie ever. I wish Hackman had been Mike Brady though.

Remarkably easy, yes. Romans 8:9, Ephesians 1: 13-14. If you did read the Bible, I suppose you've now forgotten everything. No, because they aren't saved by the same means everyone else is. They die, and then God saves them. At the judgement. That's not what wrong is. The word niggard is still proper English, but try using it in casual conversation, it will be misunderstood most every time. That doesn't mean it's wrong. I'm not fluent in Greek, but I possess a working knowledge of it. An exegetive and has no true English equivelent. Even is just one example itself, you could also say "which is" or "of". Knowledge of how translations work will demonstrate these kind of situations occuring frequently, but since most Christians (ie Catholics, although buffered by many Protestants) believe in a baptismal regeneration anyway, there isn't a significant movement for correction. Because they can't accept or reject him. It would hardly make sense to set up God's fairly complex and epic plan for salvation and then exempt billions of people from it for pretty much no reason at all. It's not just because he feels like it, it's because they can't choose. The entire concept is hinged on choice. If you're exempt from choice, you're exempt from Hell. Makes sense to me. It's also true that God is willing to remove anyone's sin, what stands in his way is rejection. If a baby has no attachment to sin, and cannot reject, they're not in the same position in that sense either. You took the analogy too far. All that showed was how a baby could be a sinner without sinning. We're in agreement. It isn't true. Saying they deserve hell is a theoretical statement since they don't go. If we establish that he was sad before he died, his behavior after he died is clearly a contrast. You're wrong though. Do yourself a favor and get this idea out of your head because it will be extremely offensive to a lot of people. You're naive, which is ok, but it's not ok to be obstinant about your naivete. This has overtaken your description of the NASB as a liberal translation as the stupidest thing you've said. No... for one thing, who is the Bible written for? Infants? Unless it was written for infants, there's no need to say "You must belief unless you can't." because if you couldn't, you couldn't read or understand that. The Bible contains information relevant to it's audience. You do. If you don't have works, it demonstrates that you don't have faith. Try this one: You can claim to be good at basketball, but if you can't make free throws, that's evidence that you're not. Is making free throws required to be good at basketball? No, as many pros demonstrate. I trust you'll be able to expand this analogy without my explaining it further. Ok, I'll phrase it this way... going by what Paul said, you will still have works, as an absolute. The people he was writing too didn't question that, they were having difficulty with the issue of whether they saved you. The people James was writing to thought that once saved you were allowed to do whatever you want, and he points out that if you are really saved, that wouldn't be where your heart and mind were at anyway. Different people, different points, same truth. This would only be a problem if James were the only book we had, but it isn't, which is precisely why there are 27 books in the NT. Taken together, we can properly interpret what he means. I pity the education received at such an institution. But, he was still a high school graduate because he still knew everything they taught him in high school. The garden wouldn't have sustained itself anyway, as the entire world was cursed by sin. He could have left the stove off, but then we wouldn't have choice. What? Most of the book is Job saying things that are wrong and God correcting him. Remember, sweetie, this is a different Job than the one in Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible. What did I just say about Hell being an English word? Jesus said Gehenna, which was a dump, which was burning. So he could have meant thrown into the fire figuratively for being thrown away. Now you begin to see what I've said all along. Yes we do. That's like saying when the KKK lynched somebody, they were really doing it to send them to heaven. For starters, he didn't say he wouldn't kill them, he asked a rhetorical question. The point was that these 120000 were in a different class than the rest of the city, and what about them was different? They didn't know right from left, they didn't reject God because they didn't know any better. Regardless of whether he killed them later, that is still true. It's a statement about infants and stupid people in general because otherwise he only meant the ones in that city at them time specifically, which is ridiculous. It's a statement that he looks at them differently than regular sinners. You keep dodging the issue but if you look it square, you'll see it's true. No, because all you need is evidence that they're viewed differently, which you have. Anything else besides a verse explicitly saying God sent them to hell doesn't matter. Good. You've contradicted this before. Actually I saw zombies myself once, down in New Orleans. That's a fun story, remind me to tell it sometime. This whole point is backwards, because the Bible's not history. It is, but not in the same way as other things. If God is real (God transcends history), then the Bible is true and God being in it doesn't negate it. If God is false, then his being there negates some of the history. In order for the Bible not to be evidence of God, it must be discredited. If you discredit it by saying God's presence negates it's history, this is obviously circular reasoning. Therefore, in order to discredit the Bible, you must not use the standard method of supernatural negation, because it presuppoes it's untruth to begin with. No, a counterbalance would be a reason in the story to explain the presence of dragons and lack of evidence thereof. Adfh dkdfkd dskjhdf jjh djjd siweh sjhdaj sakjsh skjhdkj? It's not evidence against the civil war and it's not evidence against dragons! Fucking listen. The bible isn't evidence against God. It just isn't evidence FOR God. Anymore than the Illad is evidence of Greek Gods. Anymore than fossils of hobbit sized humans are evidence that Sauron, the deceiver has come back and is looking for his ring of power. I think you've finally got it. Just because the Bible isn't evidence for God, doesn't mean it's evidence against God. Now that I've backed you into a corner, you might deny you implied it was, but rest assured, you did. Establishing this fact regarding relevancy of evidence has been a valuable watermark in the discussion. You can't say that the Illiad isn't evidence of Greek Gods either, by the way. It obviously is. It's not compelling evidence, but evidence and proof are not the same thing. The only way it wouldn't be evidence was if we had already established (as is the case) that Greek Gods are not real. This shows the bias in your thinking. I've given you fair forum and validly countered every point you've made. You could only make such a statement were this not true. What you have is, at best, a stalemate. Nothing else of comparison can accomplish this. Space Goat is a god. I said it was evidence of a God, not which one. Establishing that there was one is rather important, however.

So apparently he not only doesn't have a life now, he has less of one than he did before.