Omegaman 3.0

Servant
  • Content count

    2,716
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Omegaman 3.0 last won the day on May 28 2016

Omegaman 3.0 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,565 Excellent

About Omegaman 3.0

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 11/05/1951

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.omegazine.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Antipode of Burckle Crater
  • Interests
    Sailing on dry land, photography, artistic painting. decorative concrete, craftmanship in all things, things with motors, working with my hands, Worthy Ministries, the church I attend, my friends and family, the church universal, Bible study, fossils. marine aquariums, computers, building websites, politics a little, but especially my Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, Creator of the universe. These are a few of my favorite things.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,819 profile views
  1. you probably mean Aramaic, not Arabic
  2. I received a detailed message from zeland, a private message, not a post in this forum. Zeland had much to say. I started off with: The purpose of the question is to bring attention to the fact that Luther has no authority to tamper with the Bible. In violation of Revelation 22:18-19 . . . Basically, seems to me that Zeland is a Roman Catholic Apologist, with an agenda, as stated above. As this is a discussion forum, and not intended to be a means by which one can make contacts for private messages, I would rather see zeland address the thread directly. I do not see where, zeland really addressed what I was fishing for in my reply above, so, I will get a bit more specific and focused. Restating what was was asking . . . Zeland, you asked if there was a scriptural passage that exempts Martin Luther from the injunction of Revelation 22:8-9. When Revelation 22 make reference to "this book", there was no Bible. The Bible, is not a book. The Bible is a collection of books. One of those books is, of course, the book of Revelation, and Revelation 22 is refering to itself, this book, is the book we call Revelation. It is not proper, for us to make up rules of exegesis, that would allow us to lift Rev 22 from it's context, and then apply it to an entire collection of books, the Bible. Therefore, the injuction of Rev 22 is that a person not add to the book of revelation, not subtract from in, not alter it's prophecies, etc. So, with that clarification established, I ask once more . . . "What is it you think that Martin Luther did, that takes away or adds to the book of Revelation?" Unless there is some Martin Luther version of the book of Revelation which I am unaware of, where he added or removed words or verses from it, there is no just grounds to ask what exempts him, from something he never did. All this is, is a straw man fallacy, where you present an argument, a false premise, and then attempt to refute the false premise that your 'opponent' has not made. Since (unless I am shown otherwise) Martin Luther did not alter the book of Revelation, there is no need to provide a passage to defend and action that Luther never did. So then, the question should become: on what principle does a person accuse another of wrong doing which he never committed, or on what basis does a person presume to invent new exegetical principles that would allow us to ignore the context of a verse (the book of Revelation) and apply it outside of it's context, to the whole Bible, a collection of books not even assembled at the time the book of Revelation was penned? So, the answer to the question posed by zeland is: There is no passage exempting anyone from adding to or subtracting from the book of Revelation, and none is needed, since it was never done. A little study of systematic theology, exegesis, logical fallacies and other disciplines could go a long way toward asking improper questions, and answering them for oneself.
  3. Ditto!
  4. or, maybe HAARP is just a target of conspiracy theorists, who claim that it was capable of "weaponizing" weather. Commentators and scientists say that advocates of this theory are "uninformed", as claims made forward fall well outside the abilities of the facility, if not the scope of natural science, and "chemtrails" are just water vapor. I know of no evidence that I find compelling to make me thinks that a few people making youtube documentaries about these things, and a flat Earth etc. are any more trustworthy that they people they tell us not to trust. I have better things to concentrate on, in my opinion, that things people tell me that I should be worried about. To each their own!
  5. Why not...St Patrick's day is? And, what do the two have in common? An excuse to drink excessively! LOL!
  6. This thread is almost a year old, and I think the OP has had his questioned answered. Since the seekers forum has a specific purpose of preaching the gospel to seekers, I am closing the thread, and if someone wants to continue where it has led, they should do so, in a doctrinal area of the forum. Thanks.
  7. Yeah, I have memory problems also, LOL. I noticed, that you commented in the thread that you were unaware of . In any case, it appears that the combination of the thread works, I am often not quite sure of what I am doing! Have a fruitful discussion friends!
  8. Not saying, it does not deserve it's own thread, just pointing out, that at least one exists: and unless you have an objection to it, I think maybe the threads can be combined. Seems like this is a doctrinal issue, not a general one anyway. Unless you have some objection, I'd like to unite the two threads, while this one is still young.
  9. Bonky, I agree with the concept, that we should be good stewards of our planet, and study the data, making sure we are not wrecking the place for future generations. That is why I am not on the climate change bandwagon. Evidence seems to me, to be lacking, so far, that changes in climate, are the result of what we are doing, and not just nature taking it's course. We are not causing polar ice caps on Mars, to grow and shrink, are we? It was not the industry of civilization, that brought the Earth out of the last ice age, was it? Is it possible, assuming that the climate is actually warming, that it should be warming, and that we did not do it? Is it possible, that the present climate, is not the ideal climate (whatever that means) but that the world will be a better place if it were some degrees better? Is it possible, the the prediction of future climate effects, are in error, as the models have been so far? Is it possible, that the sea levels around the world, are rising, and that the issue is not, how to prevent that, but instead, that we just built too many cities in the "tidal zone"? Is it possible, that the seas used to be higher, than they are today (all of my ocean fossils were found on dry land)? There are lots of questions I have like this, that make me hesitate to panic and worry about all the things that the new science of climate, is just starting to explore and learn about. Climate scientists, do not all agree, and they are all beginners! Let's sit back, see how it unfolds, be patient, and not try to fix things, that may not be broken. We could make matters worse, not better. Let's not get freaked out, messing with things we do not yet understand. Let's not destroy economies, and waste resources that could be used to help people, instead of using panic as a political tool to manipulate behaviors of individuals and governments. Frankly, we are just too stupid to know what we are doing yet. That is why we should, as good stewards, take things slowly and not yield to the fear mongering of those who are creating an industry built upon fear, instead of knowledge. That is why I, as part of 'conservative thought', am slow to embrace this new 'science'. I would rather be actually correct, than politically correct.
  10. Why? If I might ask. Why not just go to an existing thread on that topic? (Like the one Hawkeye started) Just wondering why people want to have so many parallel threads at times.
  11. Why? If I might ask. Why not just go to an existing thread on that topic, if this one is not suitable for you. Just wondering why people want to have so many parallel threads at times. I will pose this question in your new thread (which is how I came to be here anyway).
  12. or, extra-tacky (could be switched on or off, according to whim)
  13. I think me too Well, presently, I am leaning toward the inlayed tile look, like that second one. However, I think I want to do the less angular, more oval, shape. Tonight (well, it is early morning) I am thinking of using hexagonal tiles, made of brown, striated glass, which are translucent. Under the tiles (always wanting to innovate) I am thinking of white LEDs, for nighttime effects on those warm, summer nights. Concept below:
  14. I wonder if that someone also went for the blood moons ones, and all of the other dates, events and predictions. I have been seeing these since the 1970s, from before I was even a Christian. I myself, even thought, in the early '90s, that maybe the end might happen near the change of the millennium. However, I never expected to see Jesus come before the tribulation, since I started studying such things in earnest in the early 80's. My confidence in that early (in my walk) assessment, has increased, after coming here in 2004, when scores or even hundreds of pre-trib rapture theorists (bless their hearts), used scripture to convince me that they were wrong. Funny how that goes!
  15. Yet, Paul preached, the gospel went out, and as many as God touched, receive. We know Paul planted, others watered, but we do not know how many God gave to His Son. You must think discussion helps some, or you would not be posting on a discussion forum.