Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stan who wrote (37124)	5/1/2004 6:42:29 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 39621

I think your posts add an interesting dimension on many levels. I believe most modern thinkers would understand that words do not make a god. A basic building block of a religious system, as opposed to an evolutionary concept is that god makes man, who makes words, which may describe a god. Interpretation, being a human device, is fallible and subjective. This is what Emile fails to understand. As ancient passages are translated, analyzed, commented upon, the ancient passages take on a life of their own, evolving into an epoch that may be very different from the original time of writing, without a readership that understands this. In other "words," one can take ancient verbiage very literally or one can change subjectively subjects and objects as Emile does and then be critical of other commentary as Emile is with the Talmud. The reality in a system of religion is that there is but one Judge. However he is called, the worship and definition is but man-made. On this level, all should be free to fantasize and to base one's belief on precedent and one's own interpretation of that precedent. Yet, until the day that a witness returns with proof or the day that there is a revelation beyond dispute, everything else is merely subjective "vision." Emile's vision is no better than that of anyone else. When one's vision causes harm either by action or by word to others, then it becomes a tyranny and a bigotry and it is the duty of society to stop that tyranny. As such beliefs are extreme and anti-social, there is no room in our world for practices of observance that go against evolving social norms, whether they be based on ancient commentary from the Talmud, the conversations of priests or ministers among themselves or the commentary of message board posters. This is why it is so important to point out Emile's bigotry and his attempt to change a belief by the simple substitution of words as you point out.

To: Stan who wrote (37124)	5/1/2004 9:07:58 AM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Stan, I will be sorry to see you go, but can understand your frustration with one that will not answer a simple, but important question. Brian is the same way. They use the bible, or I should say selected short passages, to base their opinions upon, when the vast majority of the scriptures are in complete disagreement with their rantings. When given questions about specific biblical passages, they cannot refute them, so ignore them. So, those that will tell the world that it must believe every word in the bible, avoid doing that themselves.

To: Stan who wrote (37124)	5/1/2004 9:31:32 AM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

'Only if one switches the terms--i.e."Church" for "Israel" in nearly all "necessary" instances can Emile's position thrive' An excellent observation with only one flaw "arbitrarily, for the sake of the bias" Not arbitrarily for the sake of bias as you falsely claim, but rather switching the "Chruch for Israel" because the words of Christ, inspired scriptures, and the New Covenant demands it. I switch the Church for Israel for the sake of truth and reality. Your mind has been indirectly polluted by Talmudic Judaism and the Talmud. Instead of receiving understanding from the New Testament and the Church you receive your understanding from the heresy of Christian-Zionism which in turn receives their inspiration from Talmudic Judaism. SUBSTITUTION THEOLOY Galatians 3 GOD TRANSFERS THE PROMISES OF ABRAHAM TO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 27: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29: And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed (offspring), heirs according to promise." (Christians become heirs to the promises? Sound like substitution theology.) UNDER THE NEW COVENANT ONE BECOME A JEW BY FAITH IN CHRIST AND NOT BY RACE OR CIRCUMCISION OF THE FLESH "28: For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29: He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal.>/b> His praise is not from men but from God. (What is the Holy Spirit saying here? He is not real Jews who is one outwardly. It is not physical or racial? Sounds like God is substitution the people of faith in Christ for the people or mere race and circumcision of the flesh.)

To: Stan who wrote (37124)	5/1/2004 9:52:34 AM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

Ziochristians demand justification by the law and race rather than justification by faith. They demand that the Jews must be saved as an "ethnos" or race rather than by the faith of each individual Jew. This is a theology cooked up by Satan in hell and now consumed by Talmudists and Ziochristian heretics.

To: Stan who wrote (37124)	5/1/2004 3:02:21 PM
From: Jamey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Stan, I have read that verse forwards and backwards and I don't know how you can discern that he was implying anything other than to tell them it was none of their business for only the Father knew the times and seasons. He in no way intimated that it was to be a physical kingdom. St. Paul substantiates that the Kingdom of God is to be in the Christian's heart. The new covenant establishes the Kingdom for all Christians but does not imply that their is too be another covenant with the unbelieving Jews who expected a carnal, physical kingdom. Nowhere does any of the disciples talk about this kind of kingdom in the New Testament. Matter of factly their is concrete evidence that Christ would return in that generation and I can show you dozens of verses that verify that Christ foretold and did return in 70AD to destroy the Jewish laws, holidays, feasts and everything of a physical nature that was practiced in the Old Testament Jewish laws. This is but one of many immanency verses and I ask you how can this be misunderstood by you? "Matt. x. 23: 'But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.' You hang to much on one verse that does not promise anything when their are many crucial verses throughout Malachi to Revelation about The Kingdom of God being fulfilled in THAT present generation and that it was to be a spiritual coming of Christ within the Christian's heart. James