Jump to content

Cobalt1959

Royal Member
  • Content count

    7,532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,474 Excellent

About Cobalt1959

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 10/31/1959

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.facebook.com/Coffee-with-Cremer-1778595559041496/?ref=bookmarks
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    St. Joseph, MO.
  • Interests
    Christ, Family, Church, and computers, in that order.

Recent Profile Visitors

8,667 profile views
  1. Catholic Idolatry

    You pulled up a 2 month-old post that wasn't even addressing you. brakelite is a self-confessed Seventh Day Adventist. It is not like that is a secret. And since you do nothing but start threads tearing down one denomination or the other, why is pointing out that SDA's preach a works-based salvation plan such an issue with you? All you do is point out what is wrong with denomination after denomination, and yet give no edification as to what is actually right. You've got a ways to go yet before you can run around the board applying the "judging much" statement to people.
  2. atheists parodying Christians

    This isn't about me and assigning false motivations to me will not fix your problem. I will ask the question again: Why would you associate Westboro Baptists, who were not Christian, with the rest of Christianity? To what end?
  3. atheists parodying Christians

    You made no point. The people running Westboro Baptists was a handful of kooks and they were not Christians, so your comparison is invalid. Why try to paint all Christians or atheist in the worst light possible? And if you claim to be a Christian, why would you associate Westboro Baptist with Christianity?
  4. atheists parodying Christians

    It was patently easy to tell by what they advocated, what they said and how they acted that the Westboro Baptists, that were like a group of 10 people, were not actual Christians. No Christian hates that much. That attempt at putting down Christians, as a group, was a bad example and it was a Fail. Why do people who constantly want to put down Christianity continually attempt to use a group that obviously were not Christians?
  5. Inside the International Flat Earth Conference

    He's actually required to give sources for each of these memes he posts, unless he makes them up himself, but so far, he has failed to do so. I wonder why.
  6. Inside the International Flat Earth Conference

    For the Flat Earth model to be viable, almost every physical law we know exist would be rendered null and void. This is why people like OakWood continually try and tell others that either there is no gravity at all, or gravity itself is so hopelessly complex, or really has no effect on anything that we either can't understand it, so forget it, or it really isn't needed, so forget it. They dismiss known laws of physics and continually fail to address gigantic problems with their model that we know, with absolutely no doubts, would not work the way they describe it. Mass suddenly has no effect on anything in the Flat Earth model. We know some things concretely from the general model of the Flat Earth. There would be no night time. Ever. You cannot have night in a system where the Sun and the Moon orbit over a flat earth continually. There would, therefore, never be a sunset or a sunrise. There would never be visible stars or other planetary bodies in a flat earth model. Both the Sun and Moon would be visible at all times. A ship sailing "South," (there can actually be no "South" in the flat earth model) would encounter the impenetrable "Ice Wall" and then sail around it the entire outer circumference of the flat earth and eventually return to where they started. We know this does not happen, ever. Objects having mass that does not effect their behavior in any way violates every single law of physics and means that every single system on the Earth could not work the way that it does. This is the short list. So when people say how much they have "researched" this issue, they either do not have even a basic grasp of physics, or they "researched" it with the idea that they will only find material that agrees with them and anything that counters what they already believe can simply be dismissed because it is meaningless or somehow a Big Lie perpetrated by the Freemasons or NASA. They take simple things we observe daily and then re-created their own reality to make those things mean something else, or ignore them because they don't fit their dogma.
  7. King James Version Only -response to Gipp

    I am still waiting for you to deal with the fact that you tell people every other english translation somehow has "Catholic" origins but you are assuming a KJV-only stance when the original source for the KJV is the Latin Vulgate, composed by the Catholic church. I am going to keep bring this up until you deal with the inconsistency of your position. In your own words, not some copy-and-past from a website.
  8. The "edge" of the Earth is the same two or three pictures of a glacier shown over and over again. I would think that some "impenetrable wall" that is said to be the extent we can travel would be a lot more impressive and not a glacial wall that a person could obviously climb and has a flat surface at the top.
  9. King James Version Only -response to Gipp

    It would have been simpler, and saved you typing to just say "I'm not going to deal with what you said." Your problem still exists, and you just continue to highlight it to a greater degree when you fail to deal with it every time it is brought up. You can't call other translations bad because they supposedly have "Catholic" sources when your King James Bible's original translation source was the Latin Vulgate.
  10. King James Version Only -response to Gipp

    My point was, Martin Luther had nothing to do with the translation of the KJV. The fact that KJV-only devotees use Luther's German translation for their German version of the KJV only undermines your position further because both derive from the Vulgate, which is a Catholic translation. The only point they have in common is that they both come from the Vulgate. That does not solve your problem, which you have avoided dealing with for 2 posts, so far. If we can't use a so-called "Catholic-influenced" translation then you cannot use the KJV, according to your own parameters, because it comes from a purely Catholic source. You can go back, edit your posts and put in reams of paragraphs about the Catholic church, but that does nothing to actually deal with the contradiction in your position that I have illustrated in 3 posts now, and you have not yet dealt with. What a Pope said has nothing to do with what you are dancing around, here in this thread.
  11. King James Version Only -response to Gipp

    What does Martin Luther have to do with anything? He had nothing to do with the King James Version. I don't recall saying that you were a Jehovah's Witness or a Seventh Day Adventist. I was pointing out that the only time one can truly denigrate a biblical translation is when it is obviously done with a specific agenda in mind. The Message is done to support secular humanism. The JW's translation is done to support JW's doctrine. The SDA translation is done to support SDA doctrine. Your credibility is compromised when you say, on the one hand, "Translations done by Catholics are bad," but on the other hand, you are claiming that the KJV is the only translation we should use, but the translation text for the KJV goes Textus Receptus>Erasmus Translation>Latin Vulgate. So you are claiming other translations are Catholic-based, but you are also saying we should only use the KJV when it's original translation text that it comes from was the Latin Vulgate which is a Catholic translation, so your claims are contradictory. How do you resolve that inconsistency? If you say any version that has Catholic influence should not be used, that also dismisses the KJV as being a viable translation to use. Your views are inconsistent.
  12. King James Version Only -response to Gipp

    And yet you are advocating only using a version with the majority of the translation text being used from Erasmus and the Vulgate which is where the Textus Receptus originated from. We know that the Erasmus texts has some major problems when it comes to the New Testament, and we also know that Erasmus was a Catholic. So you, on the one hand, denigrate Catholics, but, on the other hand, you are telling people they should only use the King James Version while the KJV was translated from texts that came directly from a Catholic source. That doesn't make much sense. The Church of England is just Catholic Lite so you are using a Bible that is still Catholic-sourced while condemning other Bibles you say are Catholic-sourced. Seems you are not very consistent. It is always a bogus tactic to try and hold one single translation as superior and dismiss all the rest as somehow bad based on "facts" that people keep perpetuating that are not actual facts. Unless it is some junk translation like the Message, or a "translation" aimed at one denomination to prop up their doctrine like the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation, or Seventh Day Adventist's The Clear Word there is no superior English Bible translation. They all have their strengths, pluses and minuses. Anyone with a Green's interlinear and a Strong's can check the text of any translation they have and see if it has problems, so all this other stuff is just fluff, and it is almost akin to telling your kids there is a Bogey Man under their bed if they refuse to confine themselves to the pages of the KJV. The amount of texts they had to work with in 1611 were minuscule compared to the amount of texts we have today. And we are talking actual Greek texts, not the texts Erasmus worked with that had whole sections of some New Testament books missing and he back-translated them to Greek from the Latin Vulgate. That is a huge no-no. Every translation has problems because none of them come from the original autographs so this fake assertion that the KJV is somehow superior is based on nothing and it is always a non-starter.
  13. Be wary of this "Jesus Christ: Superstar"

    Well, it's by Andrew Lloyd Weber, so you know right away it isn't going to be good . . . I think most people that remember the original production know that there is nothing Christian about this play.
  14. I am well aware of what I wrote, but you seem to know what I was thinking when I wrote it better than I do, but, not so much. I was not comparing homosexuality to murder. There is no biblical neutrality when it comes to homosexuality. It is a sin. The Bible is very clear on the subject. Romans 1:18-32 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Paul was certainly not neutral on the subject. I don't plan on writing a dissertation about why homosexuality is a mental disorder. The point is, since psychology is supposed to be based on studies and facts, to change a position on a disorder because a militant group is protesting against you is not the proper or scientific course of action. The change was not based on data, or studies, or even a consensus by the psychological community itself. It was changed because less than 15% of the APA decided to allow themselves to be intimidated into changing it. This is my last post on the subject since the entire thing is a thread derail.
  15. He was not a homosexual but I believe one of his sons is. This is what led to his militancy on the subject. He was always one of those "If we all just try hard enough, we can turn the world into Paradise" types. He told me why he had changed and it had nothing to do with Christianity, although he was never a fan of that either. He said he had learned to hate Conservatives. When I asked him how he could, on one hand, believe that we could all gather around a campfire, sing a song and just wish evil away, but on the other hand, despise an entire group of people, pointing out this inconsistency in his values is what ended the friendship.
×