Exactly, you are pompous. Adam and Eve enjoyed perfect communion with God in the beginning and had eternal life spiritually. When Adam and Eve partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they died spiritually. Christ came to give back to humanity what was stolen by Satan. It has nothing to do with merit, nothing to do with the universe owing a second life, and nothing to do with thinking about death. It has everything to do with giving back to humanity what God had intended in the beginning, but what Satan had stolen. As Christ puts it, "He [Satan] was a murderer from the beginning."
Child Rapist in Heaven
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
Exactly, you are pompous. Adam and Eve enjoyed perfect communion with God in the beginning and had eternal life spiritually. When Adam and Eve partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they died spiritually. Christ came to give back to humanity what was stolen by Satan. It has nothing to do with merit, nothing to do with the universe owing a second life, and nothing to do with thinking about death. It has everything to do with giving back to humanity what God had intended in the beginning, but what Satan had stolen. As Christ puts it, "He [Satan] was a murderer from the beginning."
No violent video games??
Im happy that Adam and Eve ate that Apple!
Knowledge > Eternal Ignorance any day.
The Lord is the great "I AM" who exists in eternity, in Him and through Him, all things exist/consist. He created this world and all the entire sum of knowledge that is in this world. The knowledge of this world, the knowledge of good and evil, gained by Adam and Eve through partaking the apple is knowledge of the created - secondary and sub par to the knowledge of the true God, the Truth. The Eternal is the true essence of existence, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega. Through Christ, one becomes sons of God, realizing that one also exists in the eternal, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. As Christ puts it, "There are those who were with Him since the beginning."
Yes but I fail to see how my disagreement of that makes me pompous. If it does, then your beliefs could be portrayed as just as pompous, if not more; that was the point of my last post.
Because it seems like advocating for criminal, a thief, a murderer, and a liar named Satan instead of justice/fairness.
It seems like it, but do I do all those things? It is pretty arrogant to assume that just because I don't share your beliefs I am therefore a criminal, thief, murder and liar.
Last edited:
It's worth pointing out that:
1) The biblical god advocated many times that people kill others and take all their possessions, (including their women). He is here happily telling people to murder and steal.
2) god has murdered more people than any other entity in the history of the cosmos - including one instance of murdering every living thing on the planet.
3) The biblical god espoused that Adam would die the day he ate of the fruit. He did not. god lied. god also told the snake that he would eat dust. Snakes do not eat dust. god lied.
Who is the liar and murderer and advocates theft?
Oh wait, it's ok when he does these things.. he's god?
Oh and if you want to bring jesus into the equation: He quite often broke the law, (laws he had set). He also got killed for blasphemy - something he quite often said people should be killed for. He got what he demanded.
Yes genuinely pompous.
God is God He is right and perfect. So He is allowed to be pompous. You are a human with all the flaws that go with being human. Your pride in self is a pathetic joke.
Pathetic and pompous at the same time.
This is the second time you have mentioned my spelling. It is a clear indication that a person has reached the end of their arguments when they resort to using spelling mistakes in a vain attempt to undermine the other.
Pathetic, just pathetic.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
I've reached the end of my argument because I think you just said some things that expose yours as pure ignorance. Muttering "pathetic, pathetic" here and there doesn't strengthen them by the way. Good to know that some absolutely automatous Christian thinks I'm pompous.
Last edited:
Celpha Fialel, you seemed to have misapplied/misunderstood the meaning of the word "advocating." Such blatant/obvious misapplication/misunderstanding of words/meanings (even after being italicized for your benefit) prevents an honest search for truth. Clearly, the criminal, thief, murder, and liar is identified as Satan, not you. Lastly, "advocating" is a verb, not a noun, so it refers to your actions, not who you are. Do you know what they say about people who think every comment is all about them when it is obvious not, in this case about Satan?
Christenstein
"Seem to have misapplied/misunderstood..." is a good choice of words on your part. Before this clarification from you, it was not entirely obvious at all you were splitting hairs to such a meticulous and meaningless degree. Moreover, simply because somebody disagrees with you, that automatically makes him possessed with the spirit of Satan? I fail to see how this coincides with an honest search for truth, if that is indeed what you advocate.
I didn't say that you were possessed. Please, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that you "advocated." Please look up the word in the dictionary before you continue this intellectual suicide.
If one does not understand the basic concepts/meanings of words/expressions of language, how would one be able to come to comprehend the truth?
If I was advocating something, then it is not an uncommon connotation of the word to assume a spirit of magnanimity which drives my doing so. You've said: "Clearly, the criminal, thief, murder, and liar is identified as Satan, not you [which is not clear at all]...Do you know what they say about people who think every comment is all about them when it is obvious[ly] not [which it wasn't], in this case about Satan?...it seems like advocating for criminal, a thief, a murderer, and a liar named Satan instead of justice/fairness." If I am advocating him, doesn't that make me and him synonymous in spirit and goal?
You've missed the point. My quib was not aimed at pedantic differences in semantics, but instead how you somewhat associate me with Satan simply on the grounds that I disagree with you.
Lawyers advocate for their clients and most of them are merely do their jobs of representing their clients; most are not synonymous in spirit and goal. Really, please look up the word "advocate" in the dictionary before you reply because there is a display of worse intellectual suicide with each reply.
Criminal defense lawyers defend "suspected" criminals all the time and they are definitely not associated with those criminals. Really, look up the word "advocate." I am beginning to agree with Adstar regarding how pathetic and pompous you are. It is like talking to a wall that won't even look up what the word "advocate" means. Dishonesty in understanding the meaning of words will never lead to truth, but leave a person in the lies.
Christenstein
You say that as if I care in the slightest whether or not you think I'm pompous. Can we get on with more pertinent matters please and drop the childish antics?
I assume you won't, so I'll settle this now; advocating means "to speak in write in favor for" (www.dictionary.com). Taa-daa, I looked it up and it only attests to my criticism of your use of it more; I am not in favor of what you would associate with Satan. So it seems I have had a full understanding of it all along, while you, in my guess to escape an erroneous associating of my views with the devil, claim I have a misunderstanding of it. What exactly would that misunderstanding be, now that we have the definition right in front of us? Go back and read our conversation.
And you still haven't addressed my observation, it's almost as if you don't want to recognize I've made it; why do you associate me with Satan simply because I disagree with your opinions?
There you go again, associating the word "advocate" with "association" when the word does not imply that an "advocate" is associated to the person they advocate for in any way, shape, or form. Have you ever heard of an "ad hom?" In this case, you are not addressing the issues, but sticking it to a smokescreen/being - Satan.
The re-quote underneath is for your clarity. By the way, if you cannot cannot accept what a word means on its face, it is intellectual suicide because you make things mean whatever you want them to mean and cleave meanings to fit your pseudo-intellectual agenda/MO.
What? Are you actually being serious?! Did you not truly read my post at all? I explain in full how I am not misunderstanding anything and all you can say back is "there you go again"? Talk about talking to a wall...you honestly can't see a connection between the words advocate and associate? If I am advocating something, would I not be somewhat associated with that something? This rings stupefyingly true even in your own example for crying out loud! The lawyer "advocates" the client, and so they are associates in the trial, regardless of whether or not the lawyer actually shares the client's views verbatim. Do you know what associate means? Maybe you should look it up.
I understand that you separate the sin from the sinner, what you see as the attributes of Satan different from my "advocation" of them. The point is that you DID associate (or if you are riled up by that word, here's a synonym: affiliate...this really is like dealing with a child) me with Satan by saying that I advocate all his loves and whatever he stands for, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned Satan to begin with.
(Here, because I know you'll get your panties in a wad over that too:
This was a response to this, by me:Christenstein said:
I don't need to put them in sequential order for you, do I?)Celpha Fiael said:
Another point; if you'll reread the sentence in which I used "associate", it was referring to your ideas of what Satan advocates (criminal, theft, murder, etc). I was never referring to myself with the word "associate." Do I really have to spell everything out for you, word by word; even definition by definition? Speaking of "ad hom"s, that's all you're doing, I request we get back on track yet you refuse to let this go and follow up with "you are not addressing the issues." Your hypocrisy is unmitigated and I don't even think you've considered it, nor are you able to! Instead, you then retreat back into an answer I've already dissected for you and responded to in full.
Meanwhile, several meaningless and improgressive posts later, YOU STILL HAVEN'T SLIGHTLY BEGUN TO ANSWER MY QUESTION TO YOU, WHICH IS THE SAME QUESTION I HAVE ASKED YOU IN EVERY POST, YET REMAIN WITHOUT AN ANSWER.
So I will bold and stress this for you, and in the next post from you, please give me an answer: Why do you assume that I am advocating (satisfied yet?) the ways of Satan merely because I disagree with your opinions?
You wrote: "The lawyer "advocates" the client, and so they are associates in the trial, regardless of whether or not the lawyer actually shares the client's views verbatim."
They are not associates because the client is paying for the lawyers services. They have a business relationship and the lawyer represents the client. From Dictionary.com:
a person who shares actively in anything as a business, enterprise, or undertaking; partner; colleague; fellow worker: He consulted with his associates before proceeding further.
Just to rehash:
Obviously, the lawyer and client are not sharing actively in the business because one is paying for services while another is providing services (one is a consumer while the other is a supplier of services). The lawyer-client relationship is hardly an "associate" relationship. I suggest you stop right now because you obviously do not know what you are talking about. Why don't you ask a lawyer whether clients are associates? They will gladly tell you that other lawyers are associates, but clients are not associates.
Not only did you get the definition of the word "associate" wrong, but you also change you point of view in the middle of the discussion to fit you agenda/MO. Absurdly, your views of "associate" span from being possessed by the spirit of Satan to sharing only a few ideas in common. Do not realize that you are double-minded?
That's an "ad hom," stating the following: "you'll get your panties in a wad over that too." Stop disrespecting other fellow human beings and resorting to pathetic name calling just because you are on the losing end of a discussion. This uncalled for.
:sleep:
Christenstein
Last edited: