Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[Dabop]

How very...odd...(and dishonest) that you pretend this:



...and this:



...do not contradict each other. Your errors and untruths continue.

(BTW, as a further demonstration that you are not capable of dealing honestly with OT Hebrew,"mitzvot" is plural..."mitzvah" would be the singular.



And yet, you, personally, seem to be setting yourself up as the arbiter of which of the "laws" can be "made to disappear"...where above, you quoted a source that said none might.

Careless of you (or heretically hybristic)...

An immortal South African swordsman must confront the last of his immortal opponent, a murderously brutal atheist who lusts for the fabled "Prize" at ISF...

They even made a movie about Paul

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0091203/

Oh wait, that's fiction too!!!!

But Paul himself said

WHY AM I THE ONLY ONE—the reason is because I am THE ONLY ONE who understands the complete revelation!

I am the one, the only one

So paul admits he is an unholy living dead being!!!!

That alone should make his particular skyfairy not want him

Well that makes me want to stone him to death, if I have to follow his particular skyfairys rules, then I will follow them all, and his (cough) my new skyfairy has some rather strict rules about false profits and such.....(intentional misspelling lol)


Whosoever is without sin shall cast the first stone, (picks up rock and hefts it from hand to hand) eyes the sinner Paul....




And........

 

[Dabop]

?

The truth is:

That none of the Paul Bethke predictions have ever come to pass,
That Paul Bethke has been quite untruthful many times, and
That the Paul Bethke sanctimonious musings are nothing but sanctimonious crap.

Thumbs up

 

[halleyscomet]

Perhaps as a writer you do not understand English and as a result you go off on a tangent. But it shows me that what I have stated is misconstrued.

So I do not need to go over things more than once—or maybe I have to repeat myself ten times.

My standpoint is very simple—a person will be judged on their marital status, whether it is a sanctified marriage or adulterous.

Now very simply—if there are 1000 people, they will suffer for their sins, and if they increase to be 100000 people it means more people will suffer for their sins—it is numerical.

So if a 1000 people commit adultery and suffer for their sins, and there is an increase of 10000 people committing adultery they too will suffer for their sins—numerical.

So what was meant, was the more people that sin they will suffer. So the population has increased considerably over the years so more people will suffer if they sin—numerical.

Dude, the article I posted had NOTHING to do with adultery. It was about a young man, raised by White Nationalists, leaving behind that ideology when he started making friends with non-whites.

How do you go from "Guy stops being racist" to "adultery?"

Did you even READ the article I linked to? Did you at least read the introduction?

I understand you're having conversations with multiple people, but please, try to focus and keep in mind with whom you are having each discussion.

Is there a history of early onset age-related dementia in your family?

 

[Paul Bethke]

My dictionary says:

Prophet

1.
a. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
b. One of the highest-ranking leaders of the Mormon church, considered by the faithful to be divinely inspired, and responsible for establishing and revising doctrine.
2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
3. A predictor; a soothsayer.
4. Absolutely not anyone called Paul Bethke.


Now, how about you share the exact details of your so-called prophecy.

You see Sir how wrong you are and ill-informed about the Scriptures—now my take is even though you may not believe in the Scriptures at least be true to what is written even if you do not believe!

A prophet is as is stated---Deuteronomy_18:18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
Again--Deu_8:3 He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.
So this is what a prophet is----a man who correctly proclaims the word of God, the Creator.

This I have done, without exception—referring to everything God has declared collaborated by Yeshua the Messiah.

 

[JayUtah]

So this is what a prophet is----a man who correctly proclaims the word of God, the Creator.

Irrelevant. You tried to prove yourself a prophet by predicting the future. It's a little late to be telling us you should have been doing something else to prove you're a prophet.

 

[Paul Bethke]

For now

As I have stated I have responded to over 900 post—I do not relish the Idea of sitting in front of the computer responding to all the post—some are very good and some are ridiculous.

It is time consuming, and although it keeps me thinking, I believe I have extracted all the helpful responses from the posts.

I am not running away—and will at times respond to a few posts that are interesting—in the meantime I will concentrate on more important matters pertaining to my passion.

 

[Dabop]

?

The truth is:

That none of the Paul Bethke predictions have ever come to pass,
That Paul Bethke has been quite untruthful many times, and
That the Paul Bethke sanctimonious musings are nothing but sanctimonious crap.

You see Sir how I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.[/hilite]
this is what a prophet is----a man who incorrectly proclaims the word of God, the Creator.

This I have done, without exception—referring to everything God has declared collaborated by Yeshua the Messiah.

Fixed that for you, after all we mustn't lie now

Must we???

 

[abaddon]

Here are some of the 613 Mitsvot---Treatment of Gentiles

Okay.

53. To love the stranger (Deut. 10:19) (CCA61). See Love and Brotherhood.

You have broken that one right here on this forum

54. Not to wrong the stranger in speech (Ex. 22:20) (CCN49).

Also that one.

55. Not to wrong the stranger in buying or selling (Ex. 22:20) (CCN50).

You are coy about how you make your living, so cannot comment. However, I do buy and sell IT services for a living and I have signed up to a code of professional ethics to which I adhere and I am an atheist. You god is superfluous.

56. Not to intermarry with gentiles (Deut. 7:3) (CCN19). See Interfaith Marriages.

That's just disgusting.

57. To exact the debt of an alien (Deut. 15:3) (affirmative).
58. To lend to an alien at interest (Deut. 23:21) According to tradition, this is mandatory (affirmative).

How did ET get home then?

Here are some more
82. Not to have intercourse with a woman, in her menstrual period (Lev. 18:19) (CCN132).

Superstitious nonsense with no basis of any kind in reality.

83. Not to have intercourse with another man's wife (Lev. 18:20) (CCN124).

What about ex-wives, widows, forced marriages, abusive marriages, etc.

84. Not to commit sodomy with a male (Lev. 18:22) (CCN116).

Blah, blah. god hates fags. Why don't you sign up with the Westboro Baptist Church. They seem your type.

85. Not to have intercourse with a beast (Lev. 18:23) (CCN117).
86. That a woman shall not have intercourse with a beast (Lev. 18:23) (CCN118).

This one is oddly specific. It isn't particularly common. Why would your god want to throw this into the mix?

87. Not to castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl (Lev. 22:24) (CCN143).

Why not? The bible is perfectly comfortable with it and even encourages it (Mt 19:12)

The Decalogue is the place where all people must be examined.

As for the decalogue, I will defer to George Carlin's discussion of same.

(NSFW...Language)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBIyC8

 

[Dabop]

[WHITE=Paul Bethke;11545033]You see Sir how wrong you are and ill-informed about the Scriptures—now my take is even though you may not believe in the Scriptures at least be true to what is written even if you do not believe!

A prophet is as is stated---Deuteronomy_18:18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
Again--Deu_8:3 He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.
So this is what a prophet is----a man who correctly proclaims the word of God, the Creator.

This I have done, without exception—referring to everything God has declared collaborated by Yeshua the Messiah.[/QUOTE]

My legs are grey. My ears are gnarled. My eyes are old and bent

 

[Crossbow]

As I have stated I have responded to over 900 post—I do not relish the Idea of sitting in front of the computer responding to all the post—some are very good and some are ridiculous.

It is time consuming, and although it keeps me thinking, I believe I have extracted all the helpful responses from the posts.

I am not running away—and will at times respond to a few posts that are interesting—in the meantime I will concentrate on more important matters pertaining to my passion.

This posting rather reminds me of an old song that I saw performed on a very funny movie:

Brave, Brave, Sir Paul Bethke!

When danger reared its ugly head

Sir Paul Bethke bravely turned his tail and fled!

...

 

[JayUtah]

Sir Paul Bethke bravely turned his tail and fled!

Which is sort of a problem with the model in which the god is powerless to speak until a suitable mortal comes along. If the human chickens out in mid-apocalypse, where does that leave the god? Or, as in Bethke's case, what if the human decides the audience is "too stupid" to speak to? What if that contradicts the god's more evolved sense of forbearance?

 

[Dabop]

now my take is even though you may not believe in the Scriptures at least be true to what is written even if you do not believe

Tnis is just the typical Bible basher attitude....

No apologies from me about MY attitude
This SUX, it's why I find religious zealots the lowest form of scum

You have to believe in my bigoted nasty p.o.s. god and his warped beliefs because I do....

No Paul, no I freaking do NOT have to


No way



No how




No- simply NO

Get it yet???
Just because you say so, doesn't mean it's right

And you Paul, have shown that your slash your sky fairy's beliefs are far from what most people find acceptable ie he is a racist, sexist lowlife piece of s......
scum...........

And this is being polite about what I (and almost everyone else, if not everyone else) thinks about his attitude's ( not you, that would be attacking the person which is against the rules, this is about your skyfairy and HIS attitudes as expressed by you)

 

[Steve]

I am not imposing my standards, it is the Creator who created the universe who stipulates how people should conduct themselves in his creation. So you do not have the power to resist his will.

It would be quite funny when you come to see how wrong you are—funny but very sad, as your stance will result in you being terrified as is stated-- Is 13:8 Terror will seize them, pain and anguish will grip them; they will writhe like a woman in labour. They will look aghast at each other, their faces aflame.
We are most certainly living in the period when the Creator will reveal himself through his power, so Mr Slowvehicle enjoy your aberration.

Nice god you have there.

 

[Slowvehicle]

As I have stated I have responded to over 900 post—I do not relish the Idea of sitting in front of the computer responding to all the post—some are very good and some are ridiculous.

It is time consuming, and although it keeps me thinking, I believe I have extracted all the helpful responses from the posts.

I am not running away—and will at times respond to a few posts that are interesting—in the meantime I will concentrate on more important matters pertaining to my passion.

What a surprise...

...the cherry-picking continues.

 

[abaddon]

Perhaps as a writer you do not understand English and as a result you go off on a tangent. But it shows me that what I have stated is misconstrued.

Baloney.

So I do not need to go over things more than once—or maybe I have to repeat myself ten times.

Nope. What you must now do is provide the exact details of your current prophecy. Given your track record of abject failure, it behoves you to state explicitly what your current prophecy is. If you do not do so, everyone will see you as a false prophet.

What use is a prophet who claims to be a prophet, yet cannot state his prophecy?

My standpoint is very simple—a person will be judged on their marital status, whether it is a sanctified marriage or adulterous.

You mean simplistic. What happens to an unmarried virgin, male or female?

Now very simply—if there are 1000 people, they will suffer for their sins, and if they increase to be 100000 people it means more people will suffer for their sins—it is numerical.

You want this suffering. You do. You like it. You enjoy it. I sense the darkness within you. The hidden evil.

So if a 1000 people commit adultery and suffer for their sins, and there is an increase of 10000 people committing adultery they too will suffer for their sins—numerical.

And?

So what was meant, was the more people that sin they will suffer. So the population has increased considerably over the years so more people will suffer if they sin—numerical.

The population increases despite the best efforts of your god. Another godly failure.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Irrelevant. You tried to prove yourself a prophet by predicting the future. It's a little late to be telling us you should have been doing something else to prove you're a prophet.

I did say I will take a break from the Forum—but I would like to respond to your post.

Yes I did make predictions that did not materialise—but that caused me to re-examine my situation, it did not make me lose hope but rather to check out what I believed—this resulted in me gaining a better insight into the method that Yahweh uses.

This confirmed the fact that what I believed was in line with the revealed word of God. So the predictions are not outside of the realm that can be used, but at a later stage.

So the next prediction will be in line with the timing of God—which I will announce at the proper time.

So as I said I will be taking a break from the Forum—enjoy yourself without me, though I know it is not the same.

 

[Crossbow]

Which is sort of a problem with the model in which the god is powerless to speak until a suitable mortal comes along. If the human chickens out in mid-apocalypse, where does that leave the god? Or, as in Bethke's case, what if the human decides the audience is "too stupid" to speak to? What if that contradicts the god's more evolved sense of forbearance?

Thanks much.

I doubt that Paul Bethke has ever realized just how much he manages to undercut his own arguments.

If there is a God who did create the whole universe, then such a being should be quite capable of speaking for itself as opposed to delegating the job us mere mortals.

 

[halleyscomet]

Which is sort of a problem with the model in which the god is powerless to speak until a suitable mortal comes along. If the human chickens out in mid-apocalypse, where does that leave the god? Or, as in Bethke's case, what if the human decides the audience is "too stupid" to speak to? What if that contradicts the god's more evolved sense of forbearance?

Assume for the moment that the god of the Bible is real and the Bible is his revealed word. (Please, bear with me here)

Here we have a man claming perfect understanding of that book who, regardless, makes prophesies that always fail, mocks all scholars, mocks anyone who asks for clarification, stomps away in a fit when too many people call him on dodging the questions and displays a profound, even comical, lack of understanding about the actual content of the bible.

Is he, in the context of a Bible actually provided by a universal creator, more likely to be an actual prophet of that deity or a false prophet being led to Hell by a singularly inept demon?

I ask in part because I'm trying to decide if I'm going to have an overt supernatural element to the story I'm writing, if I'll leave it implied and hinted or just scrap the supernatural component all together. As tempting as it is to have Pauwel Jansen engage in a religious debate with someone who stands up to him intelligently and articulately that runs the risk of a Mary Sue moment.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nice god you have there.

Especially since Mr. Betheke does not seem to be able to keep track of, or clearly identify, the "aberration" against which he rails...

He'll be back.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I did say I will take a break from the Forum—but I would like to respond to your post.

Yes I did make predictions that did not materialise—but that caused me to re-examine my situation, it did not make me lose hope but rather to check out what I believed—this resulted in me gaining a better insight into the method that Yahweh uses.

This confirmed the fact that what I believed was in line with the revealed word of God. So the predictions are not outside of the realm that can be used, but at a later stage.

So the next prediction will be in line with the timing of God—which I will announce at the proper time.

So as I said I will be taking a break from the Forum—enjoy yourself without me, though I know it is not the same.

...short break...

Any chance you might deign to actually address any one of my questions?