tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post3045629675914598900..comments2024-03-28T02:33:58.130-05:00Comments on Marshal Art's: Choose LifeMarshal Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comBlogger215125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-1841598096934298272011-03-26T03:02:04.258-05:002011-03-26T03:02:04.258-05:00""homos"
I stand corrected."
...<i>""homos"<br /><br />I stand corrected."</i><br /><br />No, troll. You stand corrupted. You're a sick and pathetic little worm with not a wit of sense, cleverness or substance. <br /><br />I'm going to respond to this supposed "gotcha" before I delete your other, worthless and stupid comments. After that, if you have nothing worthy of responding to, according to my standards, I will delete any further comments, because you bore me to tears and I no longer have the time or inclination to provide a forum for your incredible stupidity. <br /><br />Are you suggesting, like so many other twisted lefties lacking a real argument in support of perversion, that the use of the contraction "homo" is an indication of an irrational fear of...homos? Is that really the best your 8 year old mind can muster? Are you truly that incredibly pathetic (he asks knowing full well the answer)? Try again, troll. Prove I have either an irrational fear of or hatred for homosexuals. I dare you to try, coward.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-38103941673561533392011-03-25T15:54:15.707-05:002011-03-25T15:54:15.707-05:00"homos"
I stand corrected."homos"<br /><br />I stand corrected.Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-71017998153925939492011-03-25T03:23:29.923-05:002011-03-25T03:23:29.923-05:00"Removing my comments?
Tisk.. tisk.."
...<i>"Removing my comments?<br /><br />Tisk.. tisk.."</i><br /><br />No. I haven't. Not that have any value. Not that they'd be missed. I enjoy letting you make an ass of yourself. It's the one thing at which you are unsurpassed. Case in point:<br /><br /><i>"Really, ma.. you shouldnt call yourself names. This is really getting out of hand. And referencing yourself in the third person.. what a 90s Republican thing to do."</i><br /><br />Exhibit two:<br /><br /><i>"Just like nobody will cure you of your homophobia."</i><br /><br />No one can cure what I don't have. You've accused me of this mythical condition in the past. You've yet to provide any evidence that either I am irrationally afraid of homos or that I hate them. What YOU have is a nasty desire to find fault in those with whom you disagree. You cannot deal with the logic of my arguments (indeed, you've never tried to counter any of my arguments---you only mock from afar as if I'm actually in error), so instead, like the troll you are, you label.<br /><br /><i>"Many posts ago you conceded that he knew more about the Bible than you. You have actually written this."</i><br /><br />Well, I've written <i>something</i> like this. But the actual message was that despite what his education has provided him in terms of academic knowledge of the faith, he has shown little understanding of it. It doesn't matter what you know St. Augustine said, or what you know Martin Luther wrote if what you believe is inane. As shown by Feo's poor attempts to use Scripture to support his opinions he's expressed here, he has a very poor understanding indeed. None of his offerings have withstood basic scrutiny.<br /><br />And it has been his inane positions on the humanity of the unborn, the condition of creation, that he has claimed are Biblically supported. Thus, the onus IS on him to find such support to offer as proof. It is not I who must provide Biblical support for that which I have not claimed IS supported. I've only shown that HIS "support" is not support at all but poor interpretations. In fact, they've not been interpretations at all, but rather, Feodor's own preferred meanings laid upon the verses he used, meanings the verses themselves do not possess. He likes to pretend, as so many "progressive" so-called Christains do, that they have found deeper meanings in Scripture.<br /><br /><i>"Then you gave up and decided to stop quoting from it."</i><br /><br />Now you're just saying crap, aren't you? Kinda hard up to really catch me at fault somehow, aren't ya? Though you're willfully stupid, I regard you as a clinical idiot, so I must help the handicapped like yourself. Thus, I'll correct you yet again: Just because I haven't quoted Scripture lately, doesn't mean I've "given up" anything. I was never big on quoting Scripture anyway, but I have my moments when it is appropriate. Here, however, you fool, I haven't needed to as Feodor's quoting has given enough to do correcting his poor understanding.<br /><br />Now...getting back to this:<br /><br /><i>"Removing my comments?<br /><br />Tisk.. tisk.."</i><br /><br />This is not far from likely as you continually fail to post any comments that adds to any discussion. If you feel there is nothing noteworthy here at my blog, then you prove what an incredible idiot you are for spending any time visiting. Since you haven't the spine for serious discussion, and what clinical idiot troll would, you might prefer to spend your time looking at those cute cat pictures that are all the rage.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-22322868197932702372011-03-24T19:02:50.374-05:002011-03-24T19:02:50.374-05:00"This is interesting given the troll's co..."This is interesting given the troll's complete lack of knowledge regarding the Bible and its contents."<br /><br />Really, ma.. you shouldnt call yourself names. This is really getting out of hand. And referencing yourself in the third person.. what a 90s Republican thing to do.<br /><br />"the onus is on Feodor"<br /><br />Sadly.. its also on you. Nobody is actually trying to change your mind. Just like nobody will cure you of your homophobia. <br /><br />Many posts ago you conceded that he knew more about the Bible than you. You have actually written this. And, it warms my soul that we agree on something. Then you gave up and decided to stop quoting from it.Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-16710525593930809242011-03-24T18:48:41.117-05:002011-03-24T18:48:41.117-05:00Removing my comments?
Tisk.. tisk..Removing my comments?<br /><br />Tisk.. tisk..Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-28749050558186813742011-03-24T14:21:24.674-05:002011-03-24T14:21:24.674-05:00Feodor,
The Eliot piece was entirely unnecessary....Feodor,<br /><br />The Eliot piece was entirely unnecessary. For one thing, it doesn't do anything to help your case. For another, I am quite aware by now what your position is. Thus, no lengthy copy and pasting is required to illustrate it.<br /><br /><i>"Even still, in the midst of mad, bad, and dangerous faith like Marshall's."</i><br /><br />A curious comment given your ongoing inability to show in any way what is wrong with my faith or understanding of it. The truth is that you can't handle how I've shown how badly you understand it despite my lack of formal education. And just on this subject, you have shown how dangerous YOUR faith is as you infer, somehow without providing adequate support, the same type of disregard for the unborn that the Klan had done regarding blacks. Worse, when I point out how foolish your inferences are, you insist on clinging to them, just as Klansmen do. You can't even see how denying personhood and humanity to another based on size is no different than denying them because of their color. If that ain't mad, bad and dangerous, then Parkie's a freakin' Apostle. (St. Troll?)Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-75473221683388905272011-03-24T14:09:50.912-05:002011-03-24T14:09:50.912-05:00Parkie commented:
""What I take note of...Parkie commented:<br /><br /><i>""What I take note of is how your troll your own blog."<br /><br />Really.. its amazing."</i><br /><br />What's not so amazing is troll-boys amazement at Feodor's goofy remark. Troll-boy not only makes stupid and substance-free comments, but he finds the stupid and substance free comments of others to be amazing. Speaking of which, the troll says this:<br /><br /><i>"An interesting comment from somebody that gave up on using the bible in support."</i><br /><br />This is interesting given the troll's complete lack of knowledge regarding the Bible and its contents. The comment also fails to provide any example of my "giving up on using the Bible for support". If the troll is referring to this exhausted conversation, the onus is on Feodor, and others like him, to provide the support they say the Bible has for believing as they do. It was Feo that proclaimed what God has said on the subject of the humanity of the unborn. If I've made any proclamations on the subject, it is that the humanity of the unborn is so obvious as to be moot. It's a given, given how the unborn come into existence. Trolls and false priests might need <br />Biblical support for the humanity and equality of the unborn, but normal people do not. The Bible is written for all to understand. One cannot hold it to blame because trolls and false priests cannot understand it.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-30204549842321652702011-03-24T08:30:55.246-05:002011-03-24T08:30:55.246-05:00My last comment would be from T.S. Eliot. It serve...My last comment would be from T.S. Eliot. It serves to convey my sense of the eternal mystery of God and the sacred mystery of the divinely created/ self and community fallen/ jointly and temporally redeeming life of the Christian.<br /><br />How beautiful are your works, O Lord.<br /><br />Even still, in the midst of mad, bad, and dangerous faith like Marshall's.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-417971475120522602011-03-23T19:03:23.678-05:002011-03-23T19:03:23.678-05:00"And how many more words will you produce for..."And how many more words will you produce for us that doesn't support your case?"<br /><br />An interesting comment from somebody that gave up on using the bible in support.Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-33022409595890727692011-03-23T19:01:45.650-05:002011-03-23T19:01:45.650-05:00"What I take note of is how your troll your o..."What I take note of is how your troll your own blog."<br /><br />Really.. its amazing.Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-8829098691809005252011-03-22T14:25:43.694-05:002011-03-22T14:25:43.694-05:00And BTW, what was your last entry for? Which Book...And BTW, what was your last entry for? Which Book of that something called "the Bible" contains it? And how many more words will you produce for us that doesn't support your case?Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-90676242022352067032011-03-22T14:24:30.532-05:002011-03-22T14:24:30.532-05:00"If you'll read above, you'd know tha...<i>"If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall relies on the absolute unity and agreement of something called The Bible to claim that the zygote is more important than anything else in creation right along with full human beings. Even more, that the zygote is a human being."</i><br /><br />First of all, that "something" called the Bible is synonymous with something called "Scripture" and I use the terms interchangably, as do probably 99% of the Christian world. The HUMAN zygote IS more important than anything else in creation because the HUMAN zygote IS a full human being. Nothing in Scripture even remotely suggests otherwise, as you have so successfully helped me show. To demand support from me from Scripture for something so incredibly obvious is to expect the Bible to dwell on the obvious for the sake of stupid people like yourself. <br /><br /><i>"And you will not find in Holy Scripture anything that says it has a unity of agreement... nor that it itself is "holy.""</i><br /><br />Really? Who's arguing for that? The holy part, that is. As for unity of agreement, are you suggesting the Scripture is at odds with itself, saying multiply things about an issue with multiple meanings all of which conflict with each other so that we cannot know the truth (unless we are false priests)? Go back to seminary, but this time, find a good one.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-76427344568521947862011-03-22T14:16:31.674-05:002011-03-22T14:16:31.674-05:00"If you'll only read above, you'd kno...<i>"If you'll only read above, you'd know that I take the whole cosmos as sacred and holy."</i><br /><br />Good for you. But aside from the fact that you haven't proven that it is, you don't show that you really feel that way, as you don't treat opponents on blogs as if they are made in God's image and likeness and have acted like and arrogant and condescending asshole from the first.<br /><br /><i>"If you'll only read above, you'd know that I cannot find everything equally sacred and holy and you'd find that scripture says this very thing first."</i><br /><br />No it doesn't. You simply have chosen to read it that way. The verse speaks of the the beast's size and strength, that nothing is its equal in that regard, not that God favors it or considers it a creature more worthy of His favor.<br /><br /><i>"Creation is a hierarchy of work, with humankind at the apex."</i><br /><br />Creation is creation and given to mankind for his use.<br /><br /><i>"The zygote, the embryo, the un-viable fetus is a work of natural creation - holy and sacred - but does not yet have the Spirit in its nostrils."</i><br /><br />This is you own twisted opinion and is not supported in any way by Scripture, despite your lame attempts to make it say otherwise. No one was created in the same manner as Adam. There's no mention of God breathing life ito Eve's nostrils. A far better and far more logical assumption is that God breathed life into Adam, and Adam then passed that life (note that the verse does not say "Spirit") onto subsequent generations, his descendants, through the reproductive process. Thus, the zygote is blessed with the very same God-given breath of life that sustains us all, whether he actually "breathes" like a fully formed human being or not. It inherits its humanity that stretches all the way back to Adam and is passed from one generation to the next.<br /><br /><i>"It's simply there in scripture, children."</i><br /><br />Only for the childish, the self-serving and the false priest, but it isn't there in reality. Your argument in favor of that opinion is incredibly lacking and less than what I would expect a supposedly well trained and ordained "priest" would adopt.<br /><br /><i>"If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall thinks Creation is cursed rather than sacred and holy - or at least the ground is - and that the original curse still stands. This despite the promise God makes in Genesis 8 to never AGAIN curse the ground as God had just done with the flood."</i><br /><br />I don't think it, false one, I KNOW it because I understand the words and what they mean when arranged as they are. I have already explained for you what "again" means and how you it supports my position, but you don't like being shown up by someone like me, so you cling frantically to your laughable interpretation.<br /><br />furthermore....Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-14272753540956443292011-03-22T06:04:11.015-05:002011-03-22T06:04:11.015-05:00To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits,
T...To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits,<br />To report the behaviour of the sea monster,<br />Describe the horoscope, haruspicate or scry,<br />Observe disease in signatures, evoke<br />Biography from the wrinkles of the palm<br />And tragedy from fingers; release omens<br />By sortilege, or tea leaves, riddle the inevitable<br />With playing cards, fiddle with pentagrams<br />Or barbituric acids, or dissect<br />The recurrent image into pre-conscious terrors—<br />To explore the womb, or tomb, or dreams; all these are usual<br />Pastimes and drugs, and features of the press:<br />And always will be, some of them especially<br />When there is distress of nations and perplexity<br />Whether on the shores of Asia, or in the Edgware Road.<br />Men's curiosity searches past and future<br />And clings to that dimension. But to apprehend<br />The point of intersection of the timeless<br />With time, is an occupation for the saint—<br />No occupation either, but something given<br />And taken, in a lifetime's death in love,<br />Ardour and selflessness and self-surrender.<br />For most of us, there is only the unattended<br />Moment, the moment in and out of time,<br />The distraction fit, lost in a shaft of sunlight,<br />The wild thyme unseen, or the winter lightning<br />Or the waterfall, or music heard so deeply<br />That it is not heard at all, but you are the music<br />While the music lasts. These are only hints and guesses,<br />Hints followed by guesses; and the rest<br />Is prayer, observance, discipline, thought and action.<br />The hint half guessed, the gift half understood, is Incarnation.<br />Here the impossible union<br />Of spheres of existence is actual,<br />Here the past and future<br />Are conquered, and reconciled,<br />Where action were otherwise movement<br />Of that which is only moved<br />And has in it no source of movement—<br />Driven by daemonic, chthonic<br />Powers. And right action is freedom<br />From past and future also.<br />For most of us, this is the aim<br />Never here to be realised;<br />Who are only undefeated<br />Because we have gone on trying;<br />We, content at the last<br />If our temporal reversion nourish<br />(Not too far from the yew-tree)<br />The life of significant soil.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-26542933650853491862011-03-22T06:03:47.989-05:002011-03-22T06:03:47.989-05:00If you'll only read above, you'd know that...If you'll only read above, you'd know that I take the whole cosmos as sacred and holy. If you'll only read above, you'd know that I cannot find everything equally sacred and holy and you'd find that scripture says this very thing first. "Leviathan... it ranks first among the works of God... Nothing on earth is its equal." Creation is a hierarchy of work, with humankind at the apex. We will have nature serve us as it can and we ask ourselves to care for it to the extent we can: tend, till, eat of it. The zygote, the embryo, the un-viable fetus is a work of natural creation - holy and sacred - but does not yet have the Spirit in its nostrils. "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."<br /><br />If you'll read above, Mark, you'd have gotten this and not needed to ask for it yet again. The zygote is sacred and holy like the blade of grass is sacred and holy. And more so. But not as sacred and holy as the human being with "the spirit of life in the nostrils."<br /><br />It's simply there in scripture, children.<br /><br />If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall thinks Creation is cursed rather than sacred and holy - or at least the ground is - and that the original curse still stands. This despite the promise God makes in Genesis 8 to never AGAIN curse the ground as God had just done with the flood.<br /><br />If you'll read above, you'd know that Marshall relies on the absolute unity and agreement of something called The Bible to claim that the zygote is more important than anything else in creation right along with full human beings. Even more, that the zygote is a human being. But you wont find that in The Bible. And you will not find in Holy Scripture anything that says it has a unity of agreement... nor that it itself is "holy."Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-77641461240163216832011-03-20T14:15:03.978-05:002011-03-20T14:15:03.978-05:00"Even though the Bible - unrecognized by the ...<i>"Even though the Bible - unrecognized by the Bible - does not say anything like fetuses, embryos, zygotes are holy and sacred, do you think one can say they are?<br /><br />And on what basis?"</i><br /><br />What was put to you is that YOU said all creation is sacred and holy, yet you do not seem to recognize the sacredness and holiness of the unborn. It was YOUR inconsistencies that questioned. You cannot accuse us of being inconsistent by using YOUR words against us. Not in an honest disussion, anyway. I know honesty is a tough thing for you false priests, but do your best, such as THAT is. <br /><br />And BTW, this "Bible doesn't mention 'the Bible'" meme doesn't even rise to the level of cheap argument. The Bible doesn't need to use the word "Bible" in order for it to be used to support for an opinion. You are not demonstrating your "superior" knowledge with such lame tactics. You're supposed to be the educated one. When do we get to see proof?<br /><br />You wish to infer from the text not meaning, but what you'd prefer it means. Mark's inference is logical, because it refers to God relating to Jeremiah while he was yet unborn. Your inference regarding the sacredness of creation, while decent on the surface, is not logically drawn from any text you've yet offered, put willfully projected onto them by you for your own purposes. What's more, it raises a conflict between your position that all creation is sacred and holy, and your support for the destruction of the unborn.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-59676916659170996292011-03-20T09:29:42.363-05:002011-03-20T09:29:42.363-05:00So you disagree with Marshall, then?
Even though ...So you disagree with Marshall, then?<br /><br />Even though the Bible - unrecognized by the Bible - does not say anything like fetuses, embryos, zygotes are holy and sacred, do you think one can say they are?<br /><br />And on what basis?Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-81879442589836916802011-03-20T09:08:27.380-05:002011-03-20T09:08:27.380-05:00Feodor, epic fail. You didn't explain how A fe...Feodor, epic fail. You didn't explain how A fetus is the exception to the rule that was alluded to by you, yourself. YOU are the one that insisted ALL creation is sacred. A fetus, a zygote, an embryo, whatever you want to call it--ALL are creations of God. Therefore, by your own definition, they are sacred. I ask you once again to explain how you can support the baseless theory that anyone other than God has the RIGHT to destroy what God has created and declared sacred.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-17376911472093967582011-03-20T08:50:09.547-05:002011-03-20T08:50:09.547-05:00Mark,
Nowhere, in the assorted books that were wr...Mark,<br /><br />Nowhere, in the assorted books that were written separately, does it ever say that all fetuses, all embryos, all zygotes are holy and sacred.<br /><br />So, using Marshall logic, one cannot say they are.<br /><br />All it says here is that God had a particular thing in mind to make: the prophet Jeremiah. So God did.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-27493669500872478372011-03-20T07:31:10.115-05:002011-03-20T07:31:10.115-05:00Since Feodor likes to quote Holy Scripture to supp...Since Feodor likes to quote Holy Scripture to support his blatantly unbiblical argument that a fetus in the womb is not human, let him try to wriggle out of this one:<br /><br />"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Jeremiah 1:5<br /><br />Since Feodor claims that ALL God's Creations are sacred, how does he justify his apparent belief that a human fetus is the exception to the rule?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-18544631308369164112011-03-20T01:43:27.572-05:002011-03-20T01:43:27.572-05:00Just to be clear, I wasn't necessarily stating...Just to be clear, I wasn't necessarily stating that I consider Dan to be an asshole. I don't. Do I so consider Feo and Parkie? They seem to insist upon it.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-75550223042282977622011-03-20T01:37:10.847-05:002011-03-20T01:37:10.847-05:00...you drool:
"Marshall, if you cannot read ......you drool:<br /><br /><i>"Marshall, if you cannot read God's own promise in Genesis 8..."</i>snip<i>"...and know that the cosmos have a divine and sacred purpose set by God, then you don't have an ounce of Christian understanding."</i><br /><br />So which are we arguing now: that creation has a "divine and sacred purpose" or that creation is sacred? Those are NOT the same things. Even Satan is a creation of God? Is HE sacred? I should think not. But is HE part of God's "divine and sacred" purpose? He's part of creation, is he not?<br /><br />Just the same, there's a world of difference between the two. So what we have here is yet another desperate diversion from your failure to prove your point. From the unborn as equal to any other born human, to the ground is sacred, to creation is sacred, to creation is part of God's "sacred and divine" purpose. When you get to "the sky is blue", I'll be totally unable to say you're wrong again.<br /><br />Still, sacred and divine purpose does not equate to a sacred and holy creation or the removal of the curse He laid upon the earth. You are winning the battle if failure is the goal.<br /><br /><i>"One thing you will not find in Holy Scripture is this phrase: The Bible. So I guess it does not really exist."</i><br /><br />But I'm pretty sure you'll find "Scripture" or "Scriptures" in the Holy Bible, and I use <i>that</i> term as often as "the Bible". In fact, look to the 2nd to last paragraph of my last entry before the last three of yours and you'll see I said "Scripture" does not support your opinion. But be that as it most definitely is, the lack of the phrase "The Bible" within the Bible itself is about as good a proof of your desperation as any I could find.<br /><br /><i>"You've lost your grip so you want me out."</i><br /><br />You can't support that opinion, either. Others have asked me why I bother with the likes of you and Parkie, and even Dan. It's because I really don't hate anyone, even assholes. I have high hopes and prayers for the worst of you. I welcome anyone who wants to comment. What I did was offer you three choices regarding how to deal with my demeanor in dealing with you. You've obviously picked door number one, or are planning to implement the option behind door number two. I was hoping you were capable of trying out door number three. Am I wrong? Do you want so bad for me to be wrong that you will NOT go with #3? Dan <i>wishes</i> he was this gracious.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-13811968187527918392011-03-20T01:13:19.697-05:002011-03-20T01:13:19.697-05:00Feodor,
You're too easy. Can you give me som...Feodor,<br /><br />You're too easy. Can you give me something that is at least a little challenging? Tell you what: I've never gotten into Shakespeare. Why don't you throw some of his stuff around? I don't stand a chance against someone who knows Shakespeare. Then, you could say <i>anything</i>, like you're doing here, and I'd have to concede because I wouldn't know which play or sonnet whence it came or anything about it.<br /><br />But 104 does NOT support your contention. I suppose you're just going to repeat things, and throw verses at me until you find one that isn't so obviously lacking in support for your opinion. That's OK. It's not like I've had to research anything to see the desperation of your attempts to appear more knowledgeable. What I've not seen is the proof for which I've been waiting and for which your inane pronouncements demand.<br /><br />Now let's look at definitions.<br /><br />Again, "Never again will I curse the ground." Never once more will He curse the ground. He will not curse the ground in addition to previous instances where He had already done so. He will not do it a 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th, or 5th) time. <br /><br />It does NOT mean, "I hereby lift the curse I had previously placed on the ground." <br /><br />It does NOT mean, "I hereby proclaim creation sacred and holy." <br /><br />That you cannot admit to this simplicity is testament to your stupidity and desperation to prove you are what you are not. So here's a word for YOU to look up and study: "FAIL" Learn it well, fool. It's synonymous with "FEODOR".<br /><br /><i>"You and I never had a moment of gentility."</i><br /><br />True. It would not have been so had you not come on the scene like the arrogant and condescending horse's ass you are to this day. Never have I visited another blog and started in on the hosts or his guests. My shots have always been provoked. As I explained to little Alan, who frequents Geoffrey's and Dan's blogs, my jackassery (a word he coined) is not a preemptive weapon. I don't roll that way, as the kids like to say.<br /><br /><i>"Your character is so blaringly ignominious, I did not come in with charm. It just did not seem to fit the tenor of the way you carried yourself."</i><br /><br />And this is how a false priest justifies his arrogant and condescending horse's ass demeanor. If you truly know so much more about the faith, then you know the real meaning of "to whom much is given..."(probably not, but if you can say, perhaps you can then tell Dan).<br /><br />To continue...Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-4413135027378967362011-03-19T17:32:34.331-05:002011-03-19T17:32:34.331-05:00You've lost your grip so you want me out.
Pla...You've lost your grip so you want me out.<br /><br />Plain and simple.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149193.post-71153366261875133562011-03-19T17:28:37.043-05:002011-03-19T17:28:37.043-05:00From Psalm 104, the nail in your coffin (how many ...From Psalm 104, the nail in your coffin (how many times have you already failed and died, Fartshall?):<br /><br />"When you send your Spirit, <br /> they are created, <br /> and you renew the face of the ground.<br /><br />May the glory of the LORD endure forever; <br /> may the LORD rejoice in his works—"<br /><br /><br />YOU RENEW THE FACE OF THE GROUND.<br /><br />idiot.<br />______<br /><br />Psalm 104<br /><br />Praise the LORD, my soul.<br /> LORD my God, you are very great; <br /> you are clothed with splendor and majesty.<br /><br /> The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; <br /> he stretches out the heavens like a tent <br />and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. <br />He makes the clouds his chariot <br /> and rides on the wings of the wind. <br />He makes winds his messengers,[a] <br /> flames of fire his servants.<br /><br />He set the earth on its foundations; <br /> it can never be moved. <br />You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; <br /> the waters stood above the mountains. <br />But at your rebuke the waters fled, <br /> at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; <br />they flowed over the mountains, <br /> they went down into the valleys, <br /> to the place you assigned for them. <br />You set a boundary they cannot cross; <br /> never again will they cover the earth.<br /><br />He makes springs pour water into the ravines; <br /> it flows between the mountains. <br />They give water to all the beasts of the field; <br /> the wild donkeys quench their thirst. <br />The birds of the sky nest by the waters; <br /> they sing among the branches. <br />He waters the mountains from his upper chambers; <br /> the land is satisfied by the fruit of his work. <br />He makes grass grow for the cattle, <br /> and plants for people to cultivate— <br /> bringing forth food from the earth: <br />wine that gladdens human hearts, <br /> oil to make their faces shine, <br /> and bread that sustains their hearts. <br />The trees of the LORD are well watered, <br /> the cedars of Lebanon that he planted. <br />There the birds make their nests; <br /> the stork has its home in the junipers. <br />The high mountains belong to the wild goats; <br /> the crags are a refuge for the hyrax.<br /><br />He made the moon to mark the seasons, <br /> and the sun knows when to go down. <br />You bring darkness, it becomes night, <br /> and all the beasts of the forest prowl. <br />The lions roar for their prey <br /> and seek their food from God. <br />The sun rises, and they steal away; <br /> they return and lie down in their dens. <br />Then people go out to their work, <br /> to their labor until evening.<br /><br />How many are your works, LORD! <br /> In wisdom you made them all; <br /> the earth is full of your creatures. <br />There is the sea, vast and spacious, <br /> teeming with creatures beyond number— <br /> living things both large and small. <br />There the ships go to and fro, <br /> and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.<br /><br />All creatures look to you <br /> to give them their food at the proper time. <br />When you give it to them, <br /> they gather it up; <br />when you open your hand, <br /> they are satisfied with good things. <br />When you hide your face, <br /> they are terrified; <br />when you take away their breath, <br /> they die and return to the dust. <br />When you send your Spirit, <br /> they are created, <br /> and you renew the face of the ground.Feodorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.com