dagblog - Comments for "Obama-py Wall Street"

What question? I am only

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:52:22 +0000

In reply to You have waxed poetic about

What question?

I am only looking for the savior to protect me, from mans incapability to save himself.

I don't think I can save myself, I don't think my neighbor can save me either. So I ask for Gods help.

Save yourself without Gods help, from any of the calamities I mentioned if you can.

Maybe your Superman?

I recognize I am too weak and helpless against such formidable calamities. So I will humble myself, praying for help.

You have waxed poetic about

moat — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:29:30 +0000

In reply to ?declaring that our

You have waxed poetic about how much worse it will get.

Leaving that element to the side, you haven't answered my question.

?declaring that our

Resistance — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:23:51 +0000

In reply to This reply is a marked

“declaring that our generation is incapable of addressing the calamity you are waiting to happen”

What calamity are you saying “I am waiting to happen”?

What calamity are you speaking of? Colony collapse, financial meltdown, nuclear accidents, genocide? What calamity do you think mankind will stop from occurring?

If our generation was capable or mankind has that power; why haven't they done something before, it's too late.

I don’t have to wait; the calamities have already happened or are happening, or will happen.

This reply is a marked

moat — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:31:16 +0000

In reply to Comparing the two, I do see a

This reply is a marked improvement upon your previous efforts to castigate me as the spawn of Satan. I appreciate your effort to try something else.

I take your point that my version has God setting the whole problem up for his own purposes whereas your version has him stepping into a problem he never wished for. Leaving that theological minefield to the side, does this difference mean I have misrepresented your statements declaring that our generation is incapable of addressing the calamity you are waiting to happen? On that point, I thought I was repeating you word for word.

Comparing the two, I do see a

Resistance — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 01:07:22 +0000

In reply to The words you quoted were

Comparing the two, I do see a difference

You were speaking of me, “saying” to which I say, NO I never did.

Your statement first

M: "Saying that we must be devoured by the wicked so that God can sort out who should be saved is not a euphemism for an historical process."

You impugn God.

You imply he’s the cause. WE MUST BE devoured by the wicked. SO THAT HE can then become the Savior.

You imply that God posited the scenario, so God through his scheming, would sort out who should be saved, because your comment suggests a rigged system.

Whereas; my comment, gives a more accurate description of Gods love, and puts the blame squarely on wicked men, for the devouring of the weak.

It didn’t have to be so.

Since the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE, at the hands of the Babylonians. God has not had a physical Nation with one of his own appointed kings. ie King David, Solomon

When the exiled Jews returned to Jerusalem they were under the control of KINGS of the Nations (Gentiles) they have continued to live in what is called the appointed times.

During this appointed time, man has had every opportunity to do what is right for all of mankind, absent God.

Isn’t that what the Nations wanted all along ? They were telling God, quit interfering in mans affairs.

Even at the time of Jesus death, still within the appointed times, the Nation of Jews said they had no king but Caesar.

Instead of mankind proving to God, during this appointed times of the Nations, could they say “See we didn’t need you anyway, we’ve done just as well as you ever did.

What is the proof? The wicked have become more deeply entrenched and the weak are being devoured.

The appointed times of mans folly, is just about up.

When YOU say “WE MUST” be devoured because that’s Gods plan, that’s a lie.

Mankind alone CAN”T can’t solve mankind’s problems. If man could, why are we still plagued with so much violence and hunger?

Mankind, is injuring mankind; not GOD. Why is that?

I asked you earlier, what is your plan, those other countless kings and rulers of the Nations haven’t tried, during this appointed time, that would produce good results, absent God.

My words ARE different than yours

R: "The only reason God has to intervene, is because mankind alone can’t stop the wicked from devouring everything."

Mankind had every opportunity, to prevent the wicked from devouring, it failed and the people still suffer.

The appointed times are near there end.

Now the oppressed, the weak and the downtrodden will no longer have to listen to empty promises; they will soon have a Savior deliver them from the wicked.

The words you quoted were

moat — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:59:54 +0000

In reply to I can't see how that

The words you quoted were from my reply to kgb. He has not replied to that comment so we don't know what he would make of my comparison of our sentences, namely;

M: "Saying that we must be devoured by the wicked so that God can sort out who should be saved is not a euphemism for an historical process."

R: "The only reason God has to intervene, is because mankind alone can’t stop the wicked from devouring everything."

I would certainly like to hear what kgb thought on the matter but what is wrong with you? They are your words after all. Are you wishing to say that the judgment is an historical process?

In regards to the discussion of how much mankind can help himself, haven't I accurately represented your often repeated claim that we are helpless in the face of the wicked?

Read my blog The Prize Upon

Elusive Trope — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 04:12:23 +0000

In reply to From Destor Obama's silence

Read my blog

The Prize Upon Which We Keep Our Eyes

to understand why getting the churches involved in the Occupy movement is so problematic.

The question is - do you have

Elusive Trope — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 04:06:31 +0000

In reply to You said it yourself As

The question is - do you have any doubt that you have opened the wrong law book, or opening the right one not read it correctly? That others who have read the same law book as you and interpreted it differently may be right and not just heretics?

You said it yourself As

Resistance — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 03:42:00 +0000

In reply to you quote me: that society

You said it yourself

As long it follows God's law. Which of course is based on the interpretation of man - who is prone to error.

You stifle the dissenters of "mans interpretation"

With a broad bush you condemn all Christian; because of wicked men who high jacked TRUE Christianity years ago, to serve the wickedest agenda.

What do they care if people reject Christian values? They still enrich themselves

What do they care, if they can fleece the Christian flock and still enrich themselves.

Mans interpretations can be proven false from Gods own words, if one was really inclined to look, unless of course if they were benefiting from mans interpretation..

Which of course is based on the interpretation of man - who is prone to error.

The error is by those, who listen to the false prophets.

Mankind was warned, that there would be those who would sneak into the congregations and mislead many.

Is it any different with a the political system when liars and those who ignore the laws take control?

Would you get out the books and say SEE it says here, this is what you are supposed to follow or your not telling the TRUTH of what the law says.

How do you know the law, if you dont open the law book?

Really!

Resistance — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 03:10:00 +0000

In reply to just the kind of response one

Really!