Posted by Hunter [12.211.202.152 - 12-211-202-152.client.attbi.com] on 03 June 2003 at 18.17.02 ZuluTime:

Zombie, I'm going to get you for this....

Hunter: So I hear you like conspiracy theories....
     animosity_26: Not at all
     Hunter: So why did someone give me your name the other day as someone who' all about the one government bullshit.
     animosity_26: You tell me.
     Hunter: They said it was something you were all about. Claimed to have all sorts of information on it.
     animosity_26: Hmm. Interesting.
     animosity_26: I could care less for conspiracy theories. Or theories period for that matter.
     Hunter: Of course. Theories are /bad/, aren' they.
     animosity_26: Bad? That is kind of a strange statement. No. I could care less for theories because they are too shady and too argumentative.
     Hunter: Theories are too shady and argumentative, eh? Your common garden variety theory is generally based on a great deal of testing. At least, in the scientific realm....
     animosity_26: Theories have a "anything goes" aurora about them that basically makes it pointless to talk about.
     animosity_26: You said government conspiracy theories...not scientific....unless I misread.
     Hunter: I said 'onspiracy theory' and you said ' don' care about theories in general'
     Hunter: Which implies that all theories are disregarded by you; perhaps you should attempt to not speak in such broad, overgeneralising terms.
     animosity_26: True, you did say conspiracy theory but you tied it into one world government....just thought you might be another X-file nut.
     Hunter: Nope.
     Hunter: Though, having read some of your comments, you come off as one. One world currency? My my. I thought you didn' buy into...oh wait, those aren' theories. Those are religious nutball delusions.
     animosity_26: broad overgeneralising terms? basically that is my point about Gov. theories....too broad. No definitive anything.
     animosity_26: religious nutball delusions? where did that come from?
     Hunter: Why not try reading it in context. You might see where it comes from then.
     animosity_26: If that is your vain attempt to ask if I beleive in God and Jesus then the answer is yes.
     animosity_26: But Richard Belcher type Gov theories...no.
     Hunter: Nope; this is not a 'ain attempt' A 'ain attempt' by definition, would be one that does not gets the results it desires. nbsp; And I wasn' interested in whether or not you 'ad Jayzus'in any way, shape, or form. I' just trying to figure out why you profess shunning government conspiracy, but also profess 'nowing'about the 'ne world government'
     animosity_26: Knowing about anything is hardly an effory if you know where to look and have the desire to look.
     animosity_26: ^effort
     Hunter: Common c.t. response number four. "ou just gotta look for it. It' there" How odd that it works so seamlessly with religion....
     animosity_26: Okay. More specific. The UN recently adopted a measure to pool all the money of all the countries into one, shall we say, account. The only one to oppose this measure was the U.S. or more specifically George Bush. Because passing the measure gives the majority members (which are muslim countries...more votes) the right to decide how the money (The US's money as well) should be spent and where it is to bespent.
     animosity_26: So basically the majority would be able, by law, to control all funds of the US.
     animosity_26: No theory. Fact. It's on the UN homepage.
     animosity_26: But whoever replaces Bush in the presidency may decide to sign the measure.
     animosity_26: Any other questions?
     animosity_26: >:)
     Hunter: Yeah. How does it feel to be a paranoid religious nutball?
     animosity_26: Paranoid? I am not paranoid...I am excited.
     animosity_26: It means I wont have to deal with it.
     Hunter: Oh. I bet you are. It means Left Behind is gonna come troooooooo.
     animosity_26: I wouldnt say yes or no on the left behind.
     animosity_26: I dont know about that.
     Hunter: Of course you wouldn'. That would be a literary reference. No matter how unliterary those fucking books were. Great story; piss poor writing....
     animosity_26: Like I said, I have no opinion on that.
     animosity_26: I would rather go by the Bible, not a fiction series.
     Hunter: So you' rather go by fiction, not a fiction series based on fiction. Uh huh.
     animosity_26: Let me put it this way. I started out as an atheist to prove the bible to be bullshyt. I couldnt. I couldnt because more than 70% of all the predictions have come true EXACTLY as they were written. So, going by that, anyone with any intelligence would have to be a fool to not beleive the other 25% will come true the same. After all, if the lottery had those odds I would buy a ticket every month.
     Hunter: What 70% is that?
     animosity_26: ^ 25% will not
     Hunter: Or am I actually talking to that nimrod of a failed argumentative writer who wrote 'ore than a carpenter'...
     animosity_26: Read it yourself. I couldnt prove it was wrong, in fact I ended up proving it was right. So instead of being arrogant, why dont YOU TRY to prove it wrong. If you succeed then let me know because I could not.
     Hunter: I have read it myself. And I' currently waiting for any evidence showing that it' right. We even have an open invitation to the messageboard for such things.
     animosity_26: Try waiting for evidence that its wrong....the wait will be longer.
     Hunter: You got evidence; you go post it. Until there' certifiable evidence of this alleged 70% being true, valid, and factually verifiable, no action need be taken to 'isprove' Cannot disprove the unproven. It' a logical impossibility.
     Hunter: Yeah, it will. You know why? Because there' no evidence that it' right.
     animosity_26: Okay.
     Hunter: Oh, and, uh, fair warning, if you do post at http://gremlin.net/cgi-data you might want to be absolutely sure that you know your shit, because with the number of scientists there, you might be getting in over your head.
     animosity_26: Well I couldnt find any flaws in the prophecies of the Bible with 4 years of college and 6 years in the military. So take what ever education you have, prove it wrong, and then get back to me.
     Hunter: Sorry. Invalid. Burden of proof, being on he who asserts the veracity of the book, is not in my court.
     animosity_26: Of course not.
     Hunter: And four years of college and six years of the military are a sad sad shadow of a doctorate in palaeontology....
     animosity_26: If you say so.
     Hunter: Why don' you understand the logical impossibility of disproving the unproven?
     animosity_26: that statement is ridiculus
     Hunter: Is it because you spent four years in college, and 'ix years in the military' Is the quality of your education that poor?
     animosity_26: by its very nature
     Hunter: Actually, it' logical. Do you find logic to be rediculous?
     animosity_26: Your logic.
     animosity_26: In all this typing you have yet to make a point other than to basically ask others to make a point for you.
     animosity_26: Pretty lame.
     Hunter: My logic? My logic seems to mesh with a great deal of other peoples'logic; your logic is different and somehow better?
     Hunter: I haven' needed to make a point.
     Hunter: I' still waiting for your evidence.
     animosity_26: Oh I see.
     Hunter: You, having made the heavy assertion that '0% of the bible has come true' have quite a burden of proof upon you.
     animosity_26: I have no burdens.
     Hunter: Then you do not understand the nature of reality, logic, or debate.
     animosity_26: If you knew me you would laugh at the statement outloud like I just did.
     Hunter: You think that that which you say must automatically be true. That' a sad delusion. I' sorry that you'e unable to think logically. I wish there was a cure, but there' no way to rebuild the rift between the two lobes of your brain.
     animosity_26: I could of made that exact statement to you.
     animosity_26: Pathetic.
     Hunter: Really? Funny, there is no rift between the two lobes of my brain.
     animosity_26: Mine either.
     Hunter: I sincerely doubt that. You being an 'theist'who went all 'motive'about the bible....
     Hunter: You don' even know what I' talking about, do you?
     animosity_26: I simply tried to prove the Bible false and could not.
     Hunter: Probably because you lacked the education to understand that, until proven true, it cannot be disproven.
     animosity_26: You remind me of the type of person Christopher Columbus must have put up with when he said the world wasnt flat.
     Hunter: Funny; you'e the one asserting that it is....
     Hunter: Bible = true = world is flat.
     Hunter: Sorry; you lose. No copy of the home game for you....
     animosity_26: Yeah.
     Hunter: This has been quite a fun PM prank, but you'e dull.
     Hunter: I'l be sure to pass your name down along the line, though....
     animosity_26: By all means.
     animosity_26: Many different things are dull to the ignorant.
     Hunter: Too bad you don' even understand what 'gnorant'really means.
     Hunter: The irony of someone who says 'he bible is true'claiming someone else is 'gnorant'is overwhelming.
     animosity_26: Another well thought out statement.
     Hunter: Here' a hint -- 'ell thought out'doesn' mean 'ake ten minutes to find the keys'...
     animosity_26: I wouldnt worry about it if I were you. If the Bible is wrong you die and its over. OK? Remember, you are only screwed if it's right.
     Hunter: Pascal' losing wager! Minus ten points!
     animosity_26: Like I said, I wouldnt worry about it if I was you.
     Hunter: Neither would I. But then again, you'e not me. Lucky thing; I' smart. Here' why pascal' wager loses in reality: http://pascal.grem.tv/
     animosity_26: Arguing the Bible with you is like arguing why candy is bad to a child.
     animosity_26: No point.
     Hunter: Your desperate projection is tiresome.
     animosity_26: Then sleep.
     Hunter: Again, you show limited understanding of the english language.
     Hunter: And by the way -- you shouldn' go looking for mistresses online; it gets around.
     animosity_26: I am sure it does.
     Hunter: In fact, as soon as I post this, it'l get around to google in under a month. I hope your wife doesn' get online, and accidentally search for your name or username....
     animosity_26: Come on. Can you not do better?
     Hunter: Why should I waste my ability on you?
     animosity_26: You assume too much.
     animosity_26: That isnt safe.
     Hunter: I' not actually 'ssuming'anything.
     Hunter: You, however, are assuming a lack of education, and an ability to regurgitate insults.
     animosity_26: I havent insulted you at all. But you have quite frequently.
     Hunter: Really? Funny....
     animosity_26: zombie_wants_you_dead: Sorry about that...had to make a phone call.
     animosity_26: It's cool, just chatting with your little friend.
     zombie_wants_you_dead: Ah, yeah?
     animosity_26: Quite entertaining. A bit on the grade school level but nonetheless entertaining.
     Hunter: It' only on the grade school level because that' all you'l allow it to be. Terribly sorry, but I can' raise it any higher than the audience.
     animosity_26: Hey, you are controling the direction of the conversation...dont blame me.
     Hunter: And precisely, by the way, how is the discussion of logic 'rade school level' Is it because you lack understanding of it?
     Hunter: Wow. Witty retort....
     animosity_26: Basically your way of "debating" has more of a "nanana-booboo" type feel to it. Maybe you should converse with your "scientist" friends more frequently.
     animosity_26: And the small little petty threats and attempts of being sly are at best laughable.
     Hunter: I' sorry; what was that? I couldn' understand you because I was laughing too hard at the irony of you accusing me of being uneducated, but then asserting that the bible was accurate....
     Hunter: 'mall little petty' Amazing education.
     animosity_26: Case in Point.
     animosity_26: Coming from you that mean alot.
     animosity_26: ^s
     Hunter: Are you ever going to give any evidence, or are you going to keep shirking the burden of proof?
     animosity_26: Can you not find out for yourself as I did?
     Hunter: Oh, but I have. But you seem to have found evidence in support of seventy percent of this book.
     animosity_26: And so what? You cannot?
     Hunter: I can' think of anyone who' actually *looked* who has.
     animosity_26: What does that mean?
     Hunter: Particularly nobody with a working brain. The bible. The old testament and the New Testament. Where the messiah of the new testament doesn' even match up with the prophesies of the messianic texts.
     animosity_26: Yeah ok.
     animosity_26: Try again.
     Hunter: Try what again? That' pretty cut and dry. What are you using, the NIV revised version 2.0? Go back to the original texts; there' a *reason* why the Jews rejected Jesus.
     animosity_26: Actually, Jesus out of everyone is the only person that matches ALL of the prophecies.....I tried Buddah, Allah, Kali, etc...they failed miserably.
     animosity_26: You seem to think I have only studied one version of the Bible and only one Holy book. You do understimate alot.
     animosity_26: As well as assume many things.
     Hunter: *laughs*
     Hunter: I' sorry. Give me a second. That' just...
     animosity_26: Take your time.
     animosity_26: After all, if you are going to laugh...now is the time.
     Hunter: So he filled all the Isaiah prophesies...The swords into ploughshares, the in-gathering, the gentiles worshiping at the temple in Jerusalem...et cetera?
     animosity_26: 70%.
     animosity_26: Not all.
     Hunter: OH. So the messiah only has to fullfil 70%....
     Hunter: I see. Nice and liberal; pick and choose....
     animosity_26: The majority of the prophecies concern the time of the Great Tribulation. Which, if you look out your window, has not occured...yet.
     Hunter: *shakes her head*
     animosity_26: You are getting your facts confused or I am misunderstanding you. Are you refering to the prophecies pertaining to God's Son or the prophocies pertaining to the end of the age?
     Hunter: The prophesies of the bible in general. What I was referring to -- and what YOU were referring to -- were the messianic texts, which have NOT been fulfilled.
     animosity_26: There are two general prophecies in the bible...which are you referring to?
     Hunter: There' more than two, and they'e nothing but general....
     animosity_26: The "beat their swords into plowshares", which you mentioned, refers to the Millennium...which is AFTER the tribulation when Christ is ruling the earth. Not before.
     animosity_26: And once Christ returns it would be kind of pointless to debate about it when you can see Him in person...dont you think?
     animosity_26: So in your words....try again.
     Hunter: Sorry. I don' see a need to 'ry again' I' quoting everything you'e saying to a biblical scholar and trying to get an answer out of him between laughs....
     animosity_26: Do tell.
     Hunter: "o, theyre not. actually they are prophecies concerning the return from the babylonion exile and upon that return the temple will be rebuilt and those things i said before would occur"
     Hunter: "ut buts like to use that Mathean preface. Instead of it meaning what it SAYS, it is now "o be interpreted as"quot;
     Hunter: "d the general response to that nonsense is "ou dont have spiritual discernment to understand the dual meaning" there is no dual meaning"
     animosity_26: No, the plowshares pertains to the Millenium.
     animosity_26: But as usual you are after signs and proof...are you not?
     Hunter: Substantiate your claim. Where does Isaiah say anything about a millinium?
     animosity_26: Isaiah? Hmm. Give me a sec.
     animosity_26: To be honest I dont remember God revealing the Millium to Isaiah..but I will try to check....just for you.
     animosity_26: As far as I can remember Isaiah was told about the Rapture, but not the details of the Millinium. (Isaiah 26:19)
     animosity_26: Anything else?
     Hunter: "edechiah_the_messiah * uh, no. Aminute ago it was the millinium. Now its not. Now its the rapture. But Isaiah says nothing about any "apture"either."
     animosity_26: Isaiah 26:19
     animosity_26: Isaiah26:19 is speaking of the rapture....and if you are looking for the word "rapture" in the bible you should stop looking. That term was not used during those times.
     animosity_26: Anything else?
     Hunter: zedechiah_the_messiah * Is 26:17 Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O LORD. <--This is the same prophecy that was used for Jesus the FIRST time. "he birth pangs of the messiah" It looks like your buddy there wantts to use it twice.
     Hunter: Try working in context.
     animosity_26: LOL. That passage is referring to Israel blessing, praising and singing to the Lord for blessing the Kingdom of Israel. It isnt a messianic prophecy.
     animosity_26: And if you keep reading it refers to Christ returning (Rapture)..hardly the First time.
     animosity_26: Isaiah 26:21 speaks of the tribulation that follows the rapture. When the tribulation is complete THEN the millinium occurs
     Hunter: zedechiah_the_messiah * "OL!"A minute ago it was the millinium. Now its the rapture. "OL"vs 17 gives "he birth pangs of the messiah"those things which will occur when the messiah comes. "OL"ANimosity has not justified his claim. only repeated it. "OL"vs 17 cannt be divorced from vs 19 and claimed to be refering to some OTHER point in history
     Hunter: End. Game.
     animosity_26: ^read above again
     Hunter: zedechiah_the_messiah * oh, and "OL" it doesnt mention Christ ANYwhere. Thats what we call "amn bad eisegesis"
     animosity_26: Its all there in the book YOU chose.
     Hunter: You don' know your bible. I' sorry.
     animosity_26: Anything else?
     Hunter: Yes. Fucking read. Don' ignore.
     animosity_26: I am reading.
     Hunter: Really? So you'e just ignoring it and going on with your "amn bad eisegesis"
     animosity_26: Isaiah 26:1-18 is about God restoring Israel. Isaiah 26:19 is about the rapture (as we call it) and finally Isaiah 26:20-21 is about the time of judgment (the tribulation).....So exactly what am I not reading??
     Hunter: zedechiah_the_messiah * "OL!"A minute ago it was the millinium. Now its the rapture. "OL"vs 17 gives "he birth pangs of the messiah"those things which will occur when the messiah comes. "OL"ANimosity has not justified his claim. only repeated it. "OL"vs 17 cannt be divorced from vs 19 and claimed to be refering to some OTHER point in history
     animosity_26: And if that isnt clear enough John and Peter wrote about it too.
     Hunter: zedechiah_the_messiah * oh, and "OL" it doesnt mention Christ ANYwhere. Thats what we call "amn bad eisegesis"
     animosity_26: Birth Pangs refer to the times leading up to tribulation.
     animosity_26: If you cannot see that than I am sorry.
     animosity_26: A woman has birth pangs before giving birth to her child. The verses above refer to the earth having birth pangs before christ returns......those birth pangs are the begginning of sorrows, which is the tribulation.
     animosity_26: I am not really sure why you arent following that.
     animosity_26: Its pretty plain and to the point.
     Hunter: zedechiah_the_messiah * sorry but Animostity is just making up silly shit in order to try and rationalize the nonsense. Lets see the justification for that. Lets see how context and syntax demands Animositys reading
     animosity_26: Then get a bible.
     animosity_26: and check the verses
     animosity_26: its right in front of me and all i am doing is quoting.
     animosity_26: Anything else?
     animosity_26: You seem to think you are dealing with a fool. You arent.
     Hunter: zedechiah_the_messiah * ECC, no. hes eisegeting. not quoting. hes ripping it from context. not justifying
     animosity_26: And you seem to think I am making things up....which if that is the case I am at a loss as to why you dont read it yourself.
     Hunter: Of course you'e not a fool. YOU'E READING WITH THE SPIRIT! Lovely how liberal interpretation allows you to see whatever the fuck you want.
     Hunter: Yes. You *are* a fool.
     animosity_26: Of course..I am not going to write the entire Chapter on here....read it yourself.
     Hunter: zedechiah_the_messiah * Animosity = eisegeting. not quoting. ripping it from context. not justifying
     animosity_26: How immature.
     animosity_26: My son is three. When he isnt right he throws the same kind of fit.
     Hunter: Oh really? He shows you why you'e wrong, and then bitchslaps you in every way but physically up and down the street in front of everyone?
     animosity_26: This why I am confused. If you sincerly think I am writing incorrectly...then why not read yourself?
     Hunter: I' not the one throwing a fit, calling people immature or a fool. Im not the one doing bad eisegeting and failing to justify it in a reasonable manner.