Soapbox - Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23,710 Excellent

About shiloh357

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 03/07/1967

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology.

Recent Profile Visitors

16,025 profile views
  1. No, it is the spirit of strife that comes from your posts. The rest of us disagree with each other all of the time; there is a difference.
  2. Given modern liberalism and its acceptance and promotion of gay marriage, promotion of ordaining gays into ministry, supporting "Chrislam" where Muslims are actually paid staff in churches, their promotion and defense of abortion, legalization of controlled substnaces, anti-Semitism, their approval of pre-marital sex, their support of Evolution and rejection of the Bible as God's word and their rejection of Jesus as the only way to God... Yes, I would doubt the salvation of any modern, social liberal that claims to be a "Christian." They belong to the Christian religion, but modern liberals cannot be genuine followers of Jesus and advocate for they do.
  3. No, I am not obfuscating any facts. I am simply stating that even if the FBI stats are true, the liberals will ignore those stats when they are no longer convenient for them. They always do. Is that really so hard to understand? I am not going to search through thousands of threads over a 13 year span of time and multiple forums on this board. We have had many, many liberals on this board over the years, they didn't' just show up last week. You are talking about threads that probably didn't start off on gun control, but some other related topic and then morphed into something about gun control. No one has the time to search for threads often buried under years and years of other threads. But anyone who has been here long enough can confirm what I said.
  4. I never claimed it was false, nor did I imply it was wrong. I said that she will quote a whole other set of statistics later on to make the case that violent crime is up and guns will get the blame for it.
  5. Liberals, in debates on gun control on this board, in years past cite all kinds of statistics to prove that violent crime is up and has been up for years due to access to fire arms. They also cite statistics from other countries that have lower crime rates than we do, to make their case. So it rings pretty hollow to cite one set of statistics to prove that crime is down today, but then quote other statistics to prove just the opposite when they want to make a case for violent crime being up when they want to make a case for gun control. They cannot have it both ways. That's why I call it Liberal kool-aid. It's just one reason why I have no respect for liberalism.
  6. The point is that for every statistic someone can post, someone else can post their pet stastics to say something else. It happens all of the time on here. Everyone can find numbers to support the view they are promoting. Crime is "down" or "up" depending on what you are wanting to prove. So I would not put any stock in a claim by Hillary that violent crime is down. Later on, she will say the opposite to justify needing more gun control measures.
  7. I am not commenting on if the statistics you provided are true or not. I am simply pointing out that the liberals who squawk about how violent crime is down when they are campaigning on their policies, are the same ones who throw up statistics that the exact opposite in order to make the case for gun control.
  8. Ah yes, the liberal kool-aid. When they want to run on their policies, crime is down in order to show that their policies work. But when they want to justify more gun control, they claim that crime is up. We have had liberals on this board for YEARS citing statistics that violent crime is not only up, but that it is higher in the US than anywhere else. They cite those statistics to justify their views on needing more gun control laws.
  9. It is an attempt at baiting an argument. That's all. Which is why it is not a question worth answering. Maybe if someone else had started the thread...
  10. the point is that it is really not an epidemic. The media is the in tank for gun control and so they only report police events that fit a particular narrative. More whites are killed by police than blacks. But only black victims are reported on the news. They are playing you like fiddle. If people would do what the police tell them to do, they would not get shot. If the police tell you to put your hands up, don't put your hands in your pockets. There are so many idiots who do stuff like that and they rightfully get shot. A police officer has to make split second decisions and they cannot afford to take the chance that a suspect is pulling a wallet his pocket. Do what the police say and you won't get shot. Keep your hands where they can see them. It really is that simple. The African American community has really bad leadership in men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Both are just hustlers, anyway. They don't care about other African Americans. They need the African Americans to continue to be victims. That's the only reason that Sharpton and Jackson have jobs. If African Americans ever realized just how they have been played by Sharpton and Jackson, those men would be on trial and in jail for crimes against humanity because of all the blood that is their hands. Look at all of the senseless damage that was done in Charlotte. How many businesses were destroyed and looted. Those business owners have nothing to do with the police shootings. Why should they have to file bankruptcy because of looters? And now there may be African Americans are out of jobs because of the looting. 70% of the people arrested, according to police, had out-of-state drivers licenses. They were paid rioters, paid by George Soros and company just like rioters in Baltimore, and Ferguson.
  11. So we have gone from being angry at individual cops for doing the wrong thing, to just hating all cops and painting them all with the same broad brush? 99.9% of policemen and women are honorable and they do their job the right way. It is unfair to paint them all as evil based on the transgressions of a few.
  12. I can afford to be closed-minded when I am right. Open mindedness is why we have disgusting things like the LGBT and the Black Lives matter and millions of dirty, diseased, pathetic illegal aliens in our country.
  13. He was speaking not to being educated at a Jesuit university, but the specific education the Jesuits themselves, receive. You have tried to defend them before on a different thread, as if they are simply kind and benevolent humanitarians. I am affirming what he says about the Jesuits themselves.
  14. Having a degree from a Jesuit university isnt the same as being an actual Jesuit and it doesn't mean that you know anything about them. The truth is that the Jesuits are the "army" of the Catholic Church and are the enmies of true Christianity. They are evil to the core. They are the RCC's ISIS. The Jesuit oath reads in part: I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ. That I will go to any part of the world whithersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions north, jungles of India, to the centres of civilisation of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things, whatsoever is communicated to me. I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex nor condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants' heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honour, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus. The Jesuits are altogether evil. They are the tools of the devil and the evil Roman Catholic Church.
  15. Even if you could find an errant church that believed everything you believe, it doesn’t change anything regarding established Church doctrine. The denomination of Primitive Baptists don’t teach that God that God created sin and that is the point I am making. There are no interpretative systems in Christianity that make that point. Being in the minority isn’t the issue I raised in and of itself. The issue I raised is that you have nothing, no denomination, no doctrinal backing, no system of theology and above all, no direct references from Scripture that claim God to be the author of sin. Your entire platform is based on nothing but your own personal slant and inferences. LOL, Oh, I have a point. I have made a very big point. The problem is that you can’t refute it. You can reject it, but you can’t defeat it. And so far you have done everything you can to write it off, to belittle the point, and reject it, but you have not and cannot offer up any substantive refutation because it works off of your premises, and you cannot refute without doing violence to your own premise. The argumentation you provided works thusly: God created all things. Thus God created sin/iniquity because God created all things God created Lucifer with iniquity already within him God created Adam and Eve with iniquity already with them Thus, the Fall of man was God’s plan; He fully intended, purposed and planned the fall of man in the Garden. That is the line of argumentation you have been putting forth consistently in this debate. Gen. 1:31 says that God looked at all He had made and called it “very good.” “Very good” in Hebrew is “tov-meod,” and it carries the connotation of perfection, absolute perfection, as good as it gets. That is what God said AFTER He is finished creating. And if we take your line of argumentation as true, we have God calling sin/iniquity good. He is pleased with sin and iniquity, very pleased with it, if we take an internally consistent approach to your argument. So the problem we have here, is that God is, for all intents and purposes, calling sin/iniquity “perfect.” That is the obvious problem for your argument; it’s the problem that you are doing your best to deflect away from and not address because you cannot defend it and you and I both know it. But the Bible doesn’t say that. That is something you are adding in. How can something be perfect only in appearance, but not in reality? Why would God be pleased with something that only appeared good on the surface, but not in reality? Jesus condemned the Pharisees for appearing good on the surface, but not being actually good. He said they were white washed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones. He condemned them for cleaning the outside of the cup, but leaving the inside of the cup unclean. He used those metaphors to condemn outward righteousness as a means to hide inward unrighteousness. In the Bible God takes a very dim view of those who only try to appear holy and righteous outwardly while continually living in sin. We, naturally, are turned off by people who appear to care about others, while at the same time are driven by selfish, impure motives. So the claim that creation only appeared perfect, doesn’t really square with God’s character or with the teachings of Jesus. So a Christian cannot accept that God creates the appearance of perfect, and then lies by calling something perfect when it is not really perfect. God would be untrustworthy. That would also cast doubt on the sinless perfection of Jesus. Was Jesus perfect only in appearance? If so, Jesus would be unfit to be our sin offering. Well if that is the case, if Adam and Eve were created as sinners with a sin nature and sin already present within them, the next question I would ask is what did they fall from? In Christian doctrine, sin entered the world when Adam disobeyed God, but if Adam was already sinful before he ate of the fruit, then Rom. 5:12-21 doesn’t really make any sense. Sin was already present in the world and in Adam before he disobeyed. If Adam was already sinful, then there was no "fall." In established Christian doctrine, going back to apostolic times, it has always been the case that we believe that Adam became a sinner when he disobeyed God, and not before. God did not create Adam with sin already present with him. I am not sure what method you are talking about that I used and later discredited. Can you enlighten me and provide an example of me using a method and later discrediting it? No, what this reveals is that you still don’t understand the concept of “context.” Hebrew is a very small language. It has about 8700 words. Compare that with over 300,000 words in English. Despite that, Hebrew is very precise and very nuanced at the same time. Because Hebrew has a small pool of words, many of those words play double, triple, quadruple duty. One word in Hebrew can be used 10, 15 even 20 different ways depending on how many contexts it is found in. So when you have two different contexts, the same word can mean two different things. This is also true to some degree for Koine Greek in the New Testament. You have to pay attention to contextual usage. In Hebrew, the word tam means “perfect” or “perfection.” But, tahimim is the plural of tam. It doesn’t translate as “perfections” as it is not a numerical plural. It is what we call a plural of intensity. It actually means “entire” or “whole.” So the usage of word in reference to Lucifer means that He was wholly perfect in all His ways, there was no imperfection in him. Now you have been trying to assert that “in his ways” mean that he was only perfect in action, but not inwardly, but the word “ways” in Hebrew is derekh and it can refer to a physical path or a road. However, when used in Ezek. 28:13 to refer to Lucifer it is only re-enforcing the word tahmim. When we say that someone is good or perfect in everything they do, we intuitively refer to their inward character. We naturally understand that good behavior stems from a good inward character. You are trying to deny what is intuitive normal every day thinking and you are trying hard to deny that the Bible says exactly it what it says. “Ways” or derekh is used in a spiritual context to refer to inward moral direction that under girds or prompts one to have good moral behavior. There is no way around it. Lucifer was wholly perfect in every part of his being. Now how does that relate to how the same word is used with Noah? Well it is used differently because it doesn’t say that Noah was perfect in all his ways. The same word is used differently with Noah and the context is totally different. Noah was a sinner, an unregenerate sinner just like those who lived around him, but Noah is described as a just (righteous) man and a man who is “perfect in his generation.” In Hebrew, it is tahmim hayah b'dorotaiv. Here the word “perfect” is meant to be understood as “upright.” It doesn’t mean flawless perfection. That would not fit the context. What it is saying is that Noah was just and was upright in his setting in life. No, it makes the point that you don’t understand how Hebrew works. It is not as simple as pulling out Strong’s or Vine’s. It means that language has a level of complexity that you are complete unaware of because you have no training in how to handle the biblical languages and you completely misunderstand the concept of context and its effects on word usage. Simply using a dictionary isn’t a substitute for knowing how to handle the language. Strong’s only provides you with the root words and then gives an exhaustive list of different meanings/usages. It has no analytical capability and was never meant to be stand-alone reference for Greek and Hebrew and the way it is set up, assumes some prior education in those languages. I am not an expert, but I am far more competent in Hebrew than someone who has to rely on Strong’s and has no concept of context or any other aspect of biblical hermeneutics. When I say I have graduate level training in Hebrew, it means I have studied on a Master's degree level. I don't have a degree Hebrew. No one gets a degree in Hebrew. You might get a doctorate or master's in biblical languages, but that is a useless degree unless you plan on being a seminary professor. No, that is not what it is telling us. It does not say that God created anyone for eternal life or damnation. That is not even in keeping with the context or the line of thought Paul is developing in this chapter. This is not a treatise on personal salvation. Romans 9, 10 and 11 are God’s defense of His sovereign right to use Israel’s rejection of Jesus as a means of blessing the Gentiles. Jacob and Esau represent two nations, according to the Lord in Gen. 25: 22-23 (Paul is quoting from that passage in Rom. 9: 12. So everything Paul is saying about Jacob and Esau must be seen from a corporate, national perspective. Jacob represents the Jewish people and Esau represents the Gentile nations from a covenantal stand point. This is not about individual salvation at all. This section (9, 10 and 11) comprises an appeal to the Gentiles, who have benefited from God’s partial hardening of corporate Israel, to bring the Gospel back to the Jewish nation. The problem is that “hated” in reference to Jacob and Esau is not speaking to personal contempt. “Loved and hated” are being expressed in covenantal terms. It’s something our western culture has no point of reference for. We think of hate only in terms of contempt. But that is not the case when God is looking at two nations with regard to a covenant relationship. Jacob was no better than his brother. But God sovereignly chose His covenant to be through Jacob in spite of Jacob’s poor character. From a corporate covenantal perspective, God, for reasons known only to Him, preferred Jacob over Esau. It doesn’t mean that Esau was outside the purview of redemption. It doesn’t mean that God created Esau to destroy him. God’s choice of Jacob over Esau has nothing to do with salvation. God’s choice of Jacob had to do with service, not salvation. Personal salvation from sin is not part of Paul’s line of thought. So to make this about God choosing who will be saved in Romans 9, reflects poor hermeneutics and a complete abandonment of simple, literary context.