RSS

MOOA meets Ecclesiastes 3:18

13 Feb

The Island of Dr. Moreau MOOA:  Man or Other Animals [courtesy Google Images]

The Island of Dr. Moreau
MOOA: Man or Other Animals
[courtesy Google Images]

If you follow this blog, you know that one of my major focuses (some might say “obsessions”) it the phrase “man or other animals” (“MOOA”) as it appears in a number of state and federal laws.  That phrase indicates that the government perceives us all as animals rather than “men made in in God’s image” (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and who are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (as per the “Declaration of Independence”). (See Man or Other Animals #1 and the “Category” “Man or Other Animals” which lists all of my articles relevant to that concept.)

By defining us as “animals” the government has achieved what Dr. Moreau attempted with chemistry and genetics in the fiction entitled “The Island of Dr. Moreau”.  By defining us as “animals,” the government has presumably stripped us of virtually all of our most meaningful rights, and relieved itself of the obligation “to secure these [God-given, unalienable] rights” to every man, woman and child (found in the third sentence of the “Declaration of Independence”).

More, as seen at item #3 in The 8 Stages of Genocide, defining the American people as animals is an act of genocide comparable to the A.D. 1935 Nuremburg Laws in which the Nazis declared the Jews to be “untermenschen” (sub-human, animals) and laid the legal foundation later arresting all Jews without warrants and legally exterminating men, women, children, non-combatants in concentration camps.  As “animals,” the Jews had no right to “Life” and could therefore be “legally” exterminated like a hive of wasps or a nest of rats.

The earliest instance of “man or other animals” laws that I’ve found is the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act which defined both “food” and “drugs” in terms or “man or other animals”.  The entire Food and Drug Administration is based on the false and rebuttable presumption that you and I are merely “animals”.

For me, the implications of “man or other animals” are clear and chilling.  But others who read this blog have some doubt.  They point to verses in the Bible that might be interpreted to show that God regards us all as “animals”.

For example, one of my readers recently commented in another article that,

Ecclesiastes 3:18 refers to men being beasts. Perhaps then there is a biblical basis for governments viewing man the same as an animal. What are your thoughts on Ecc 3:18 ?”

I hadn’t previously noticed that verse so I decided to take a look and see if it really described men as animals (actually, “beasts”).

Sure enough, as first glance, that verse did seem to equate men to beast:

 

“I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.”  Ecc. 3:18, KJV

But what does that verse really mean?  Does that verse tell us that men really are “beasts” and no longer made in God’s image and given special rights and duties in this life?  If so, Ecclesiastes 3:18 would provide evidence to refute my MOOA theory and legal defense.

Or does that verse merely tell us that men should be made to see that they are acting like “beasts” and thereby subjecting themselves themselves to God’s unfavorable judgment?

•  First, note that Ecclesiastes was apparently written by king Solomon who was alleged to be both the wisest and richest in all the world.  I don’t doubt that Solomon may have been the world’s richest man, buy my understanding of his life leads me to regard Solomon as one of the world’s biggest, jerks, fools and malcontents.   If Solomon is the wisest man that’s ever lived, mankind is in deep doo-doo.

According to 1 Kings 11:1-6,

“King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites,Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites.  They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love.   He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.   As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been.  He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites.   So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done.”

Any man who thinks he can handle 1,000 wives is a freaking idiot.  Not even the Muslims are crazy enough to want 1,000 wives.  Having 1,000 wives may be an act of extraordinary vanity or extraordinary madness—but it’s surely not an act of exceptional wisdom.

There’s no way that even Solomon could remember the names of all of his wives, or the names of all of his children.  And imagine the problems of remembering each wife’s birthday and anniversary—as well as the birthdays of each of his children.   Solomon would need a staff of a dozen clerks just to keep up with buying the gifts and the anniversary and birthday cards for all of his dependents.

Can you imagine being the only man to walk into a harem of 1,000 over-sexed wives?  You’d be lucky to get out alive.

What’s God’s purpose for marriage?  To raise godly children.  How does a man with 1,000 wives raise godly children when he probably doesn’t even recognize any of his children by name?

Any Old Testament Hebrew who thought he could ignore God’s law concerning marriage to foreign wives was a freaking idiot.

And then, according to 1 Kings 11:1-6, “and his wives led him astray.   As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods”.  Bunk.

First, Solomon was not led astray by his 1,000 wives.  He was led astray by his own ego and sexual appetites.  He was fool enough to think he could handle 1,000 wives and that tells me is that this guy is a dummy.

Second, I’ll bet that when Solomon “grew old,” his wives didn’t turn his “heart” to other gods—they turned his “head” (his lower head, if you catch my drift) to other gods.  Smart as he was, Solomon didn’t have brains enough to invent Viagra.  Therefore (at his wives’ demand or perhaps taunting), in his hour of need (so to speak) Solomon started following other gods such as Ashtoreth  and Molek in hopes that they’d give him the strength (so to speak) to service all of his wives.  (It’s hard work tending to 1,000 wives.)

OK—I’m making fun of Solomon.

But Solomon really does impress me as one of the biggest, perhaps the biggest, fool to ever set foot in the Bible.  He had looks, brains, his father’s money, political power, and 1,000 wives.  He was the rock star of his age.  Queens (Bathsheba?) came from foreign countries just to get a “piece of the rock”.

He was allegedly the world’s wisest man, but I suspect that title was bestowed on him because of his bank balance rather than his IQ.  People tend to think that anyone who has money must be smart, so if Solomon had the most money, he must’ve been presumed to be the smartest guy around.

In truth, Solomon was the favorite son of a rich guy (David) and inherited all of his father’s wealth and political power with the old man died.   For me, that’s an important point.  Solomon never really worked or struggled to gain the wealth and power he enjoyed.  Ohh, he was admittedly smart enough to hold and even increase the wealth he’d inherited, but he never had to struggle to gain that wealth and power in the first place.  That kind of struggle teaches us values that a man who inherits at a young age is unlikely to ever truly understand.

And then, being the wealthiest (and allegedly wisest) man on earth, and having 1,000 wives and God only knows how many one-night stands, Solomon is still unhappy (he wrote “Lamentations”), extraordinally vain (“all is vanity”), unfaithful to God, and willing to engage in evil.

The man was a freakin’ moron. He was a spoiled rich kid.  He had it all, and it still wasn’t enough.

Yes, he was wise enough to write a series of intelligent insights and observations about life et al—but he didn’t really live by his own wisdom.  He was a “do as I say, not as I do,” kinda guy.

•  My point (besides having a little fun) is that I don’t respect Solomon and I don’t automatically believe anything that he allegedly wrote—including Ecclesiastes 3:18.

So, even if Solomon (the world’s allegedly wisest man) had meant Ecclesiastes 3:18 to indicate that all men were, in fact, “beasts”—I’d just give him and that idea the Bronx cheer.  If that were Solomon’s conclusion, I’d reject it as the work of a fool.

But, did Solomon actually mean to say that all men are “beasts” and thus no longer made in God’s image?

The question has been considered by a number of Bible analysts from the 18th and 19th centuries.  I have access to some of their works by means of “e-Sword”—a really wonderful computer program for studying the Bible.

Here are some of the results that “e-Sword” made available to me:

•  Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (A.D. 1715-1832):

 

Ecc 3:18:  That they might see that they themselves are beasts – The author of Choheleth has given a correct view of this difficult verse, by a proper translation: “I said in my heart, reflecting on the state of the sons of men, O that God would enlighten them, and make them see that even they themselves are like beasts.” These words are to be referred to those in authority who abused their power; particularly to the corrupt magistrates mentioned above.”

We’re not the first generation to be perplexed by “this difficult verse” which, at first glance, seems to observe that all men are “beasts” rather than men made in God’s image.

Note that the verse reads, ““I said in my heart”.  Thus, we are not listening to God’s word or the words of a prophet.  We are only reading the personal opinion of some rich guy.

Adam Clarke concluded that this verse only applies to some men, especially those in positions of power, who abused their power and, in doing so, acted like “beasts”.

I agree with Adam Clarke’s analysis.  I’d say further that the tendency of men in power to act like “beasts” is simply a variation on the expression that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Thus, to be “corrupt” is roughly synonymous with acting like a “beast” or animal.

To believe in “might makes right” and “survival of the fittest” are other expressions of man’s tendency to sometimes act as if he were a beast.  Those statements are evidence of a kind of idolatry whereby some of us worship power (especially if we personally possess it) rather than a spiritual concept of right and wrong.

For me, a good example of a man who worships power rather than right and wrong is Barack H. Obama.  His multitude of Executive Orders serves as evidence of his inclination to make whatever law  he likes and enforce only those laws he fancies.

Obama’s appetite for “murder by drones” is another evidence of his love of personal power.  Having the power of the presidency, Obama routinely violates the existing law, makes whatever laws he likes by means of Executive Orders, and even plays a dominant role in selecting those who are to be murdered by drones.  Obama is a man who’s chosen to act like a “beast”.

Note that Adam Clarke did not say that all men were “beasts” and, by implication, were not made in God’s image.

Clarke said that sometimes men act “like beasts”.  The use of the word “like” in Ecclesiastes 3:18 makes clear that Solomon is making an analogy, a comparison, rather than a statement of fact.  Clarke clearly implied that all men are made in God’s image but some nevertheless choose to succumb to the temptation of acting as if they were “beasts”/animals.  This choice would constitute a sin.

Barack H. Obama has chosen to act like a “beast”.  In doing so, he’s chosen to distance himself from God.

•  In Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, the author (Albert Barnes, A.D. 1798-1870) said this about Ecclesiastes 3:18,

“literally, I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men, it is that God may prove them and show them that they are beasts, they themselves. ‘Showing’ is the reading of the Septuagint and Syriac: the present Hebrew text reads “seeing.” The meaning is that the long delay of God’s judgment Ecc 3:16-17 is calculated to show people that the brevity of their life renders them incapable of following out and understanding His distributive justice.

I disagree.  Our lives are sufficiently long to understand God’s “distributive justice” if we choose to make the effort to understand and/or choose to explain God’s justice even to most of those whose intellect may be too limited to understand on their own.

Individual men may have certain limits that prevent them from understanding God’s “distributive justice,” but no such limit applies to mankind.

I’m surprised that Barnes seemingly implied that God: 1) wants us to learn to understand His “distributive justice,” but 2) doesn’t allow us to live long enough to do so.

Both statements can’t be true. If God wants us to understand, He would necessarily give us sufficient life expectancies to do achieve that understanding.  If God won’t give us a sufficiently long life to understand “distributive justice,” then God cannot expect us to understand.

 

In  John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible,  Dr. John Gill (1690-1771) analyzed Ecclesiastes 3:18 as follows:

 

“Ecc 3:18  I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men,…. He thought of the condition of the children of men, their sinful and polluted state; he weighed and considered in his mind their actions, conversation, and course of life; and was concerned how it would go with them at the day of judgment on account of the same. Some render it, “I said in mine heart after the speech of the children of men”; speaking in their language, and representing the atheist and the epicure, as some think the wise man does in the following verses; though he rather speaks his own real sentiments concerning men, as they are in their present state, and as they will appear in the day of judgment; “

“that God might manifest them; or “separate them”; as the chaff from the wheat, and as goats from the sheep; as will be done at the day of judgment, Matt. 3:10; or “that they might clear God“; as they will, when he shall judge and condemn them; “

Solomon isn’t saying that men are beasts.  Quite the contrary.  He’s saying that because men are made in God’s image, we have certain duties and obligations that don’t apply to beasts/animals.  However, whenever we choose to instead act like beasts, we violate our own godly nature and commit sin against ourselves and against God..  Solomon is he’s warning those of us who dare to act like beasts that we will one day be judged—and presumably condemned by God, Himself—for having made that choice and thereby turned our backs on our own godly nature and to God.

In the context of that judgment, we will be “separated” like the goats from the sheep.  The goats will be damned to perdition.  The sheep will be rewarded.

How many things of an animalistic nature do we figuratively “worship” in this society?

How many of us seek to find (or be) the man or woman who behaves like an “animal” when we fornicate?

How many of us of seek to be the man or woman who can fight like an animal in sports events or in our daily lives?

How many of us prefer to watch those TV and motion picture dramas which focus on gross violence of the police or criminals—or even the horrific violence perpetrated by demons or psychopaths?

What about the members of the military returning from Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.?  Do we honor them for having risked their lives to fight for our government?  Or do we honor them for having murdered some unknown number of “gooks” and “ragheads”?

How ‘bout our military-industrial complex where we invent and manufacture ever more effective weapons to ensure the deaths of our enemies?

What about those of us who use alcohol, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs to reduce our inhibitions (conscience) and thereby act as “beasts”?

How many of us have murder in our hearts whereby we are waiting, secretly hoping for some criminal or cop to invade our homes and give us an excuse to kill them?

What about our society’s tendency to embrace the “man of action”—when the ultimate “action” always involves murder or self-sacrifice?

There is something in our society that is almost as bloodthirsty as the Romans who once cheered for gladiators who murdered each other in the Coliseum.

Even if we haven’t personally perpetrated any act of violence against someone else (or ourselves), to what extent does our fascination and indirect support of even imaginary violence constitute evidence of our personal inclinations to behave like “beasts”?

Will we be one day judged negatively for not only our acts but also our inclinations?  Or will we be judged positively for our ability to inhibit our violent inclinations?

Must we make it our business to pursue peace rather than war?  Peace rather than violence against another?  Peace even in our own hearts?

Must we even  abandon our secret rage?

John Gill’s commentary continues:

“and that they might see that they themselves are beasts; as they are through the fall, and the corruption of nature, being born like the wild ass’s colt, stupid, senseless, and without understanding of spiritual things; nay, more brutish than the beasts themselves, than the horse and the mule that have no understanding, Psa 32:9; “mulo inscitior”, as is Plautus’s phrase; see Psa 49:12, Isa 1:3; this is now made manifest to the people of God by the word and Spirit; is seen, known, and acknowledged by them, Psa 73:21; and the wicked themselves will see, know, and own what beasts they are and have been, at the day of judgment; how they have lived and died like beasts; how like brute beasts they have corrupted themselves in things they knew naturally; and that as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, spoke evil of things they understood not, and perished in their own corruption, Jud 1:10, 2Pe 2:12; and that they have been beasts to themselves, as Jarchi renders and interprets it; made beasts of themselves by their brutish gratifications; have been cruel to themselves, ruining and destroying their own souls; or among themselves, and to one another, “homo lupus homini”; hence wicked men are compared to lions, foxes, evening wolves, vipers, and the like. So Mr. Broughton renders it, “how they are beasts, they to themselves.”

I realize that Mr. Gill’s text is over 250 years old. I realize his text is therefore a little hard to read.  But—whoa!—if you will trouble to read it slowly and comprehend his meaning, I think you’ll find his meaning chilling.

Mr. Gill seems to imply that every time we choose to beat, bully, intimidate, rape, rob or kill another man or woman we are making beasts of ourselves and thereby choosing to turn our backs on our own spiritual natures, turn our backs to our Father YHWH ha Elohiym, and invite our own damnation.

All of a sudden, the words “shalom” and “peace” seem to make so much more sense to me.  They carry a new weight I hadn’t previously understood.   When I claim that “I come in peace,” my peaceful nature is not intended to protect the other guy from whatever violence I might otherwise perpetrate.  Instead, my peaceful nature is intended to protect me from committing violence and thereby “making a beast” out of myself.

I don’t come in peace to protect you; I come in peace to protect me.

And who was the preeminent man of peace?  The Christ.

With the one exception turning over the moneychangers’ tables and chasing them with a whip, the Christ remained peaceful even unto his own death. Rather than resort of violence in his own defense, even though he knew he was innocent of the charges against him, the Christ allowed himself to be arrested, tried, convicted, scourged and finally crucified.

Was the real point to the Christ’s crucifixion to prove that at least one man, somewhere, who was made in God’s image, could remain true to that “image” and resist the temptation to resort to violence and acting like a “beast” under even the most extraordinary circumstances?  Did the Christ open the door to mankind’s salvation and even his own acceptance by God, by eschewing all violence and refusing to act like a beast?

In  Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Matthew Henry (1662 – 1714) commented on the seven verses of Ecclesiastes 3:16-22, which included Ecclesiastes 3:18.  Mr. Henry’s English is 300 years older than our own.  It takes effort to read, but the effort is absolutely worthwhile:

 

 “Solomon is still showing that every thing in this world, without piety and the fear of God, is vanity. Take away religion, and there is nothing valuable among men, nothing for the sake of which a wise man would think it worthwhile to live in this world. In these verses he shows that power (than which there is nothing men are more ambitious of) and life itself (than which there is nothing men are more fond, more jealous of) are nothing without the fear of God.

“I. Here is the vanity of man as mighty, man in his best estate, man upon the throne, where his authority is submitted to, man upon the judgment-seat, where his wisdom and justice are appealed to, and where, if he be governed by the laws of religion, he is God’s viceregent; nay, he is of those to whom it is said, You are gods; but without the fear of God it is vanity, for, set that aside, and,

“1. The judge will not judge aright, will not use his power well, but will abuse it; instead of doing good with it he will do hurt with it, and then it is not only vanity, but a lie, a cheat to himself and to all about him, Ecc 3:16.  Solomon perceived, by what he had read of former times, what he heard of other countries, and what he had seen in some corrupt judges, even in the land of Israel, notwithstanding all his care to prefer good men, that there was wickedness in the place of judgment. It is not so above the sun: far be it from God that he should do iniquity, or pervert justice. But under the sun it is often found that that which should be the refuge, proves the prison, of oppressed innocency. Man being in honour, and not understanding what he ought to do, becomes like the beasts that perish, like the beasts of prey, even the most ravenous, Psa 49:20. Not only from the persons that sat in judgment, but even in the places where judgment was, in pretence, administered, and righteousness was expected, there was iniquity; men met with the greatest wrongs in those courts to which they fled for justice. This is vanity and vexation; for, (1.) It would have been better for the people to have had no judges than to have had such. (2.) It would have been better for the judges to have had no power than to have had it and used it to such ill purposes; and so they will say another day.

“2. The judge will himself be judged for not judging aright. When Solomon saw how judgment was perverted among men he looked up to God the Judge, and looked forward to the day of his judgment (Ecc 3:17): “I said in my heart that this unrighteous judgment is not so conclusive as both sides take it to be, for there will be a review of the judgment; God shall judge between the righteous and the wicked, shall judge for the righteous and plead their cause, though now it is run down, and judge against the wicked and reckon with them for all their unrighteous decrees and the grievousness which they have prescribed,Isa 10:1. With an eye of faith we may see, not only the period, but the punishment of the pride and cruelty of oppressors (Psa 92:7), and it is an unspeakable comfort to the oppressed that their cause will be heard over again. Let them therefore wait with patience, for there is another Judge that stands before the door. And, though the day of affliction may last long, yet there is a time, a set time, for the examination of every purpose, and every work done under the sun.  Men have their day now, but God’s day is coming, Psa 37:13. With God there is a time for the re-hearing of causes, redressing of grievances, and reversing of unjust decrees, though as yet we see it not here, Job 24:1.

“II. Here is the vanity of man as mortal. He now comes to speak more generally concerning the estate of the sons of men in this world, their life and being on earth, and shows that their reason, without religion and the fear of God, advances them but little above the beasts. Now observe,

“What he aims at in this account of man’s estate. (1.) That God may be honoured, may be justified, may be glorified – that they might clear God (so the margin reads it), that if men have an uneasy life in this world, full of vanity and vexation, they may thank themselves and lay no blame on God; let them clear him, and not say that he made this world to be man’s prison and life to be his penance; no, God made man, in respect both of honour and comfort, little lower than the angels; if he be mean and miserable, it is his own fault. Or, that God (that is, the world of God) might manifest them, and discover them to themselves, and so appear to be quick and powerful, and a judge of men’s characters; and we may be made sensible how open we lie to God’s knowledge and judgment. (2.) That men may be humbled, may be vilified, may be mortified – that they might see that they themselves are beasts. It is no easy matter to convince proud men that they are but men (Psa 9:20), much more to convince bad men that they are beasts, that, being destitute of religion, they are as the beasts that perish, as the horse and the mule that have no understanding. Proud oppressors are as beasts, as roaring lions and ranging bears. Nay, every man that minds his body only, and not his soul, makes himself no better than a brute, and must wish, at least, to die like one.”

Interesting.  Blaming God is a kind of blasphemy that is, to some extent, behaving like a “beast”.   We must therefore “clear God” of responsibility for our problems.  We encounter our problems because, although we are men made in God’s image, we or our oppressors have nevertheless succumbed to the temptation to behave as beasts.

Perhaps, insofar as our government behaves as beasts, and therefore knows themselves to be beasts, they therefore define all others as also being “animals”.  Insofar as you are deemed to be just another “animal” (like your oppressors) where is the crime or sin in depriving you of rights that only attach to men made in God’s image?  Where’s the crime or sin in robbing your or even killing you if you are really nothing more than an “animal”—and a weak animal, at that.  Should the cat be damned for killing mice?  Or is it simply in the natural order of things that strong predators oppress, rob or kill the weaker prey?

If we live in a world where man is only an animal, then we live in a world where the only rule is “survival of the fittest”.  If you lack the physical fitness required to survive, you are a free lunch for any predator with a club, gun, badge, or public office with no more right to petition for redress of grievances than a rabbit caught by a fox.

As usual, I’m trying to illustrate that government’s determination to treat you as an “animal” and your willingness to accept that classification, mean you’ll have no rights, little wealth, and little chance for a long life.

It’s no game when your government defines you as an “animal”.  It’s not an accident.  It’s not a triviality.  It’s an act of spiritual warfare that threatens your human existence and your spiritual survival.  This threat—perpetrated by your own government—is as big as it gets.

Matthew Henry continues:

“2. The manner in which he verifies this account. That which he undertakes to prove is that a worldly, carnal, earthly-minded man, has no preeminence above the beast, for all that which he sets his heart upon, places his confidence, and expects a happiness in, is vanity, Ecc 3:19. Some make this to be the language of an atheist, who justifies himself in his iniquity (Ecc 3:16) and evades the argument taken from the judgment to come (Ecc 3:17) by pleading that there is not another life after this, but that when man dies there is an end of him, and therefore while he lives he may live as he lists; but others rather think Solomon here speaks as he himself thinks, and that it is to be understood in the same sense with that of his father (Psa 49:14), Like sheep they are laid in the grave, and that he intends to show the vanity of this world’s wealth and honours “By the equal condition in mere outward respects (as bishop Reynolds expounds it) between men and beasts,” (1.) The events concerning both seem much alike (Ecc 3:19); That which befals the sons of men is no other than that which befals beasts; a great deal of knowledge of human bodies is gained by the anatomy of the bodies of brutes. When the deluge swept away the old world the beasts perished with mankind. Horses and men are killed in battle with the same weapons of war. (2.) The end of both, to an eye of sense, seems alike too: They have all one breath, and breathe in the same air, and it is the general description of both that in their nostrils is the breath of life (Gen 7:22), and therefore, as the one dies, so dies the other; in their expiring there is no visible difference, but death makes much the same change with a beast that it does with a man. [1.] As to their bodies, the change is altogether the same, except the different respects that are paid to them by the survivors. Let a man be buried with the burial of an ass (Jer 22:19) and what preëminence then has he above a beast? The touch of the dead body of a man, by the law of Moses, contracted a greater ceremonial pollution than the touch of the carcase even of an unclean beast or fowl. And Solomon here observes that all go unto one place; the dead bodies of men and beasts putrefy alike; all are of the dust, in their original, for we see all turn to dust again in their corruption. What little reason then have we to be proud of our bodies, or any bodily accomplishments, when they must not only be reduced to the earth very shortly, but must be so in common with the beasts, and we must mingle our dust with theirs! [2.] As to their spirits there is indeed a vast difference, but not a visible one, Ecc 3:21. It is certain that the spirit of the sons of men at death is ascending; it goes upwards to the Father of spirits, who made it, to the world of spirits to which it is allied; it dies not with the body, but is redeemed from the power of the grave, Psa 49:15. It goes upwards to be judged and determined to an unchangeable state. It is certain that the spirit of the beast goes downwards to the earth; it dies with the body; it perishes and is gone at death. The soul of a beast is, at death, like a candle blown out – there is an end of it; whereas the soul of a man is then like a candle taken out of a dark lantern, which leaves the lantern useless indeed, but does itself shine brighter. This great difference there is between the spirits of men and beasts; and a good reason it is why men should set their affections on things above, and lift up their souls to those things, not suffering them, as if they were the souls of brutes, to cleave to this earth. But who knows this difference? We cannot see the ascent of the one and the descent of the other with our bodily eyes; and therefore those that live by sense, as all carnal sensualists do, that walk in the sight of their eyes and will not admit any other discoveries, by their own rule of judgment have no preëminence above the beasts. Who knows, that is, who considers this? Isa 53:1.  Very few.  Were it better considered, the world would be every way better; but most men live as if they were to be here always, or as if when they die there were an end of them; and it is not strange that those live like beasts who think they shall die like beasts, but on such the noble faculties of reason are perfectly lost and thrown away.”

. . . .

Although these previous authorities do not expressly raise the issue of Genesis 1:26-28 (“On the sixth day, God created man in His image and gave man dominion over the animals.”), it seems apparent that they all agree that man is made in God’s image, is given dominion of the animals, and therefore cannot, in fact, be an animal.   However, insofar as we act like animals—and perhaps, insofar as we allow ourselves to be labeled or treated as animals—we may expose our souls to damnation.

Thus,

1) My argument that the government’s use of the phrase “man or other animals” means government presumes the people to be “animals” is valid;

2) By presuming man to be an animal, government thereby violates a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths (that men are not animals);

3) Our right to rebut the false presumption that we are animals and therefore subject to laws that apply to animals is secured against the federal government by the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion in the federal Constitution and whatever section of our State constitutions also guarantee freedom of religion.

4)  Ecclesiastes 3:18 does not equate men to animals in fact, but only in conduct.

I read Ecclesiastes 3:18 to be an expression of Solomon’s personal opinion that men who are made in God’s image should avoid “acting like beasts” less they ultimately be judged as “beasts” by our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.

 
164 Comments

Posted by on February 13, 2014 in "Man or Other Animals", Bible, Despotism, Fascism, Genocide

 

Tags: , , , , ,

164 responses to “MOOA meets Ecclesiastes 3:18

  1. Martens

    February 13, 2014 at 8:40 PM

    1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

    “soul” = psyche (G5590), defined by Strong’s as:

    “breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only…)”. (emphasis added)

    Revelation 8:9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

    “life” = psyche (G5590), the same word used in 1 Corinthians 15:45 to describe what God made Adam.

    So we see that Adam was made a “psyche”, which, according to Strong’s, is exclusive to animals (for example, creatures of the sea).

    Therefore, man is an animal.

    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

    Philippians 3:20-21 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

     
    • Jetlag

      February 14, 2014 at 1:20 AM

      @Martens

      Your quote of 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 specifies that Christ is the image of God.

      This clearly means the “image of God” status does not apply to man in general. If man in general was the image of God, the quoted statement by Paul, saying Christ is the image of God, would be superfluous.

      Moreover:

      1 Corinthians 15:47-50 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

      This passage tells us that Christians shall “bear the image of the heavenly”: that is, be re-made in the image of Christ (see your quote of Philippians 3:20-21), which is the image of God.

       
      • Martens

        February 14, 2014 at 7:34 PM

        Jetlag: “This passage tells us that Christians shall “bear the image of the heavenly”: that is, be re-made in the image of Christ (see your quote of Philippians 3:20-21), which is the image of God.”

        Great point.

        Paul uses the future tense when he says “we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” through Christ.

        This means he and the people he was addressing did NOT bear the image of the heavenly at the time he was writing.

         
      • Jetlag

        February 14, 2014 at 8:27 PM

        @Martens “This means he and the people he was addressing did NOT bear the image of the heavenly at the time he was writing.”

        That’s the self-evident conclusion. Paul and the Corinthians did not bear the image of God at the time Paul was writing to them. Rather, they were to acquire the image of God in the future:

        1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

        This future event was their transformation into something like Christ:

        Philippians 3:20-21 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

        Christ being the image of God:

        2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

        But what of the statements in Genesis that say man was made in the image of God?

        These statements are, of course, correct: man was made in the image of God. However, just because man was made a certain way does not mean he hasn’t changed in the meantime.

        Paul is telling us that man lost his image of God at the Fall, which made the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, our new image of God, necessary.

         
      • J.M.

        February 16, 2014 at 12:03 AM

        Talk about tunnel vision.

         
      • J.M.

        February 16, 2014 at 7:10 AM

        Adam & Eve FELL from a state of obedience to a state of disobedience. We have a building character issue here. We should be more concerned with our character development & less concerned about our reputation. Character is what we really are. Our reputation simply means what others think we are. I suppose Moses was an animal too, RIGHT?? Well of course. Where is everybody? Yeah,too many I don’t want to get involvers.I just wanna set back & laugh.

         
      • Jetlag

        February 16, 2014 at 6:10 PM

        @Martens

        The following verse is yet another (see above) confirmation that Christ specifically (rather than man inherently) bears the image of God:

        Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

        Yet, in what may at first seem a contradiction to this, we read that man is the image of God:

        1 Corinthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

        But there is no contradiction, really. The Bible never contradicts itself. The solution has to do with context. In the preceding verse, Paul is addressing Christian worshipers. A few verses earlier he said:

        1 Corinthians 11:3-5 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.

        So once again we see it is Christians who are made (or, more precisely, remade), through Christ, in the image of God, because it is only through Christ that one may regain the image of God which mankind lost when Adam corrupted himself at the fall.

        Colossians 3:8-11 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

         
    • Yartap

      February 14, 2014 at 12:18 PM

      Nay, Nay, Martin,

      Please reread ALL of Strong’s definition. You have missed the meaning of soul and life. The definition only relates man and animals as having life and the means of life by breathing. (“the animal SENTIENT (aware) principle only”). That is all. Man and animals are not the same.

       
      • Jetlag

        February 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM

        Yartap,

        Here is the complete entry for “psyche” by Strong’s:

        from yucw – psucho 5594; breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from pneuma – pneuma 4151, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from zwh – zoe 2222, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew fagw – phago 5315, 7307 and chay 2416):–heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.

        There is nothing in the remainder of the definition to change the meaning of the part quoted by Martens.

        Now, given that “psyche” is the animal sentient principle only, and Adam was “made a living psyche” (1 Corinthians 15:45), it follows that Adam was an animal sentience.

        Thus we have a scriptural basis for “man or other animals”.

         
      • Yartap

        February 14, 2014 at 6:28 PM

        Wrong Jetlag. Try again. (“the animal SENTIENT (aware; responsive to or conscious of sense impressions) principle ONLY, ONLY, ONLY!”), just like an animal, not as an animal. Distinguished from pneuma 4151.

         
      • J.M.

        February 14, 2014 at 7:18 PM

        Yartap,
        @ >You have missed the meaning of soul and life.

        Yartap, dear one, Martens & Jetlag are not missing anything. They KNOW what they are doing. Remember, dear Yartap, Satan himself tried to trip up the AUTHOR of the Book itself by using scripture. It should be no surprise children of the devil (Satan) are doing the same thing. BTW. IF you get time, etc. Where, in the Scriptures did God warn King David of the consequences of having an “eye” out for & biting off more than he could chew if he, David, chose to take on a lot of women for his uhh would it be, pleasure? You no what I mean

         
      • thomas russo

        February 14, 2014 at 8:20 PM

        The problem with dictonary’s is that there are about if not more than two thousand and the problem with words is that someone is always making one up for one reason or another. Now, in the legal arena they have their definitions to be specific to what is being address and that is called Code specifically for legislative rules of attachements to the subject in question to which it applies which is statutory, Now, in Common law we have the same thing, but common law creates the fiction and here is were the fiction has a problem, for it can not create law. Now, looking back on all this with an attempt on my part to make it clear is that voters and the vote are all fictions of law and to take it one step further the State and the legislature are also fiction of law, so how do I arrive at this conclusion?, which in fact is very simple, but even though one should read the foundation of it all to come to it, which is in Volume 1 United States Code which includes Titles 1-4 (Organic Laws) and Title 5 sections 101-5949 (refers back to TItle 4 of Titles 1-4). The example is Ohio being once part of the Northwest Ordinance (Title 3), and then having X amount of free inhabitants mentioned in Title 2 in want to establish a Constitution ratified Title 2 and established a Constitution 1803 and added Title 1 to it along with establishing its borders, at that point the Terrritorial government was eliminated making it impossable to legislate within those border not only for the past Territorial government but also for the newly formed bordered 1803 Constitution and its general assembly and now the political dilema begins for we now have free inhabitants pursuant to Article IV of Title 2 having all the privileges and immunites of state citizens without being one, we also have “Inhabitants and gypsies” (modern term (CORPOATIONS and FRANCISES) that need to be controled by some authority since one can not legislate upon free inhabitants we now move to the 1851 OHIO Constitution but have to leave in place the 1803 so by moving one moves by resolution and as I must point out resolutions are not law as well as proclomations and create a Revised Code for now the individuals and gypsies are under control of legislative acts as well as the so called STATE/State and under the Constitution “of the United States” which is 1851 OHIO constitution and its legislative acts for they are the voters and everything else outside of that is all fiction upon fiction and a label and meaningless paper with one exception and that is Volume 1 United States Code and the facts there in.

         
      • J.M.

        February 14, 2014 at 10:36 PM

        Yartap,
        @ >February 14, 2014 at 7:17 PM < ALL OF YOUR MESSAGE
        That's my Beloved Brother Yartap speaking, RIGHTLY seeing & explaining The Good LORD's words. Go getum Yartap.!!!

         
      • J.M.

        February 16, 2014 at 9:32 AM

        @Please reread ALL of Strong’s definition.
        If a word can be defined with any number of meanings, they, Martens & Jetlag, are going to search for one to justify their way of thinking. See, I know what a MAN is. I at least KNOW that much. A certain “God” has told me. If I did not already know this, & I wanted to try & find out what man means, & if a man is defined as, Adam, Man, Mankind, Human. I will go along with the OTHER 3 choices. I don’t think the word human even existed at the time of Adam & Eve.. I don’t believe the PERVERTED English language even existed. Martens & Jetlag are really only saying what they believe themselves to be & probably do not like the idea & so they are trying to drag some of us down to their deplorable level & condition. This is why they chose “human” above the other 3 defined ways. Christ was SPIT on over 2,000 years ago, OR 2 days ago, the way “God” reckons “time” The spitting continues to this day. We ARE in the LAST hour of the long standing problem’s 6,000 years of his 7,000 year time plan. Or we could say, 6 days & the 7th day of rest is at the door. Satan has been given 6 “days” to do his work, it’s almost over. Martens & Jetlag have been and ARE 2 good arms for Satan. LIKE in if the right one don’t getcha the left one will. Problem is they have 2 right hands on 2 left arms, & they’re just hanging in each other’s way.

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 29, 2015 at 2:49 AM

        Yartap,et al,
        @ from yucw – psucho 5594; breath
        And THIS IS what RETURNS to “God’ who gave it, when we die, The Breath of life is what returns to “God”. We return to the dust from where we came,hopefully to be resurrected in that FIRST Resurrection. aka, BORN AGAIN to those who know at least SOME TRUTH. Jesus the FIRSTBORN OF MANY BRETHREN TO COME. But REMEMBER! Jesus was BORN First FROM MOTHER Mary. He, about 33 years later, DIED. He was BORN the 2nd time when he was resurrected BUT !! He was a BORN the 2nd time as a SPIRIT BEING not a Flesh BLOOD & Bone being. His LIFE THEN was in his SPIRIT, NOT IN BLOOD. He did not have ANY Blood in his SPIRIT BODY.

         
    • J.M.

      February 14, 2014 at 7:40 PM

      Martens,
      Hey Hoss, you gave me a warning a while back, REMEMBER?? Yes, you spelled it, w-a-r-n-i-n-g. Now I’m going to give you a warning. This is not a game we are playing here. This is SERIOUS. Now you keep on doing as you are by trying, to make some of us aware of your superior intellectual capacity & advanced superior knowledge by using the Words of God to get your message across, & you are going to get the wind taken out of you sails, if something not worse. Why don’t you just stay with other things you DO KNOW a LOT about? Discuss those things. If I were you, I would lay off bringing “God” into this It is plain to me you do have the god of this world with you. There is a scripture that says WOE to those who offend one of these “little ones.” You have been warned Martens, this goes for Jetlag too. It’s as tho you two are bed partners.Same pattern on every thread like this one

       
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 4:18 AM

      Martens,
      You Martens, inserted this scripture: > 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

      Am I understanding correctly that you use the above scripture to say that the above scripture applies to, Alfred Adask, Yartap, & me, J.M.? Your refusal to answer this question will be understood that you are saying, YES. This is the only way I can get a response from you, & that is, to answer for you, in your behalf.

       
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 4:49 PM

      Martens,
      How do you get around saying Jesus Christ was, at least, half of an animal.?

       
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 5:39 PM

      What is the difference in a domesticated & a NON domesticated animal OTHER than JUST THAT? ONE IS DOMESTICATED & THE OTHER IS NOT. OR, if I am wrong tell me why & how. Are you here to HELP or SHOW OFF ??!!!

       
    • J.M.

      February 16, 2014 at 5:32 PM

      @ “This passage tells us ……………..”
      I’m glad I’m not one of the USes. But it’s obvious you have the overwhelming majority on your side. I hope OTHERS of “us” will be one of those “little ones” that comprise that “little flock.”

       
    • J.M.

      February 16, 2014 at 9:07 PM

      @ > Yeah, too many I don’t want to get involvers.I just wanna set back & laugh.

      I’ll try & say the above statement better. How many of you “good people” “out there” are saying, I don’t want to get involved? I just want to sit back & LAUGH?

      I,J.M., confess, because I KNOW, you are all for Martens & Jetlag. That’s ok I respect your “freewill.” AND in addition, you can’t take on one heavyweight, Alfred Adask, & 2 featherweights, Yartap & me, J .M.CAN YOU !!!, Maybe Yartap is a lightweight. If so, 1 featherweight, ME, & one lightweight, Yartap,& one heavyweight, Alfred Adask, is just TOO MUCH too handle for ALL you other HEAVYWEIGHT SO CALLED CHRISTIANS. I understand. You do know, sometimes, WHEN not to try wrestling with something you can’t overcome, & besides,You have Jetlag & Martens speaking for you. I understand. U B not dumb. Yo mama didn’t raise no fool. See ya in the “World Tomorrow.”

       
      • thomas russo

        February 16, 2014 at 11:10 PM

        Adam so to speak comes from the Greek which was taken from the Egyptian, while Egyptian tech was stolen by the Greek, Romans, Christian, Jeud, Moslem and more. The whole of the so called bible is lacking in context while the Roman Catholic church as it is, is nothing more than what remained of the Roman ancient culture of a senate and emperor. The so called Christian bible was mixed with the Talmud, at any rate its a long, long story that one has to researh on their own for relegion and polotics are the same thing, called people control.

         
    • J.M.

      February 17, 2014 at 10:12 PM

      ………..the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

      In that it seems most people do not even know what the word “Adam” means, & I believe it is because they could care less, the following is just more garbage to those who regard themselves as high level readers & with an extraordinary high level of understanding & are PROUD of it. Chew on this a while & enjoy a good hearty belly laugh. This is at least one time tho that the word FOOL does not apply to me. Christian Gains, knows EXACTLY what I mean.

      1 Corinthians 15:36
      Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die

       
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 12:14 AM

        Stop attempting to be knowledgable in bible when only a thumper.

         
  2. J.M.

    February 13, 2014 at 10:07 PM

    Martens
    @ >1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

    BACK UP A LITTLE.

    1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals…Not all living matter is the same living matter; on the contrary, there is one kind fo another kind of living matter for animals, another for birds and …

     
  3. J.M.

    February 13, 2014 at 10:14 PM

    @ Therefore, man is an animal.

    1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals…

    You Martens say Man is an animal. God’s word says there is a difference in a man & an animal. Does it or not.? Do I need to go on what you say? Help me out here.

     
  4. J.M.

    February 13, 2014 at 10:46 PM

    @ The man was a freakin’ moron. (<Solomon)

    This is probably saying something good about him. But, He became this way & for the very reasons you mentioned. He was not always a freakin moron. By Solomon doing a 180 he degenerated into an ABOMINATION in the eyes of "God." It ain't easy to stay straight when one man has all the wealth he did. Based on what you said in a prior thread about testosterone levels he must have been dark purple If that's darker than black.or something blacker than black. Mmmm A piece of what??? Oh yes, that's right a piece of the rock. They were rockin & rollin a long time ago weren't they. I want to laugh hard some more so, I'm gonna read your article again. Animal man is back. I asked him before if God has or had animal breath. God did breathe into Adam the breath of life. He would not answer me.

     
  5. thomas russo

    February 13, 2014 at 10:53 PM

    One has to look at what is defined and “human” so pull up the Legal Dicitonary, but before I get to this one should understand that the Legal Dictionay is for “attorneys” and is not a commen use english dictionary, further there are around two thousand dictionarys, so everything must be defined in the use of a “word”, something most do not tell another. So human in a legal dictionary, but you have to look up MONSTER, so MONSTER; An animal which has a conformation contrary to the order of nature. 2 Dungl. Hum. Phys. 422. It is said that a monster, although born of a woman in lawfull wedlock, cannot inherit. Hose who have, however the esential parts of the human form, and have merely some defect of conformation, are capable of inheritng, if otherwise qualified; 2 Bla.Com. 246; 1 beck, Med. Jur. 366; Co. Litt. 7, 8,; Dig. 1. 5. 14; 1 Swift, Syst. 331: Fred. COde, pt. 1, b. 1, t. 4, section 4.
    No living human birth, however much it may differ from human shape, can be lawfully distroyed. See Briand, Med. Leg. pt. 1, c. 6, art. 2, section 3; 1 Fodere, Med. Leg. section 402. and this is from BOVIERS LAW DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED and there are more, and the wording here is “LAWFULLY DISTROYED” and says nothing about being LEGALLY DISTROYED, while the wording between LAWFULLY AND LEGALLY is the KEY WORDING in part. So how does one get through all this, well one is not a human one is a man and I will qualify the word man for it includes woman also, so when one say man it means bothe; man/woman for in nature (lawfull) we have both charactoristics masculan and feman, the whole of the art of wording is in the definition used and all legal definitions are defined to what they mean in word art within legislative acts. Take for example Act II of Romeo and Juliet; what is in a name?, Romeo if you were not a Monitscue you would still be you, so read it. There are two types of law; one written and the other unwritten and to know the differenc on should read Volume 1 United States Code which includes Titles 1-4 and Title 5 sections 101-5949 paying close attention to dates of entry and language used in Titles 1-4 for there in is written and unwritten laws the foundation, and all written law is in Title 4 of Titles 1-4 and reflects from Title 4 to Title 5 not Title 2 or Title 1 which reflect back to the lack of territorial jurisdiction of Title 4 and 5, and yes it can be confusing at first. As an example Ohio had X amount of free inhabitants (man) reflected in Title 2 and established a “bordered Constitution in 1803 and Ratified Title 2 and 1 reflected in its Constitution 1803 at which point Titles 3 and 4 no longer had any jurisdiction for the Territorial governance was eliminated, so they could no longer legislate there in for now all Article IV free inhabitants had all the privileges and immunities of state citizens without being one as outlined with the 1803 Ohio Constitution not the 1851 Constitution for that one is for Title 4 and subject to Title 5. A lot to seemingly get through, but its all there people, so who wants to be a human a thing and all things have names and all things have birth certificates (slaves), the unconsious. Recall we all went to a Publis School now you have to edify yourself.

     
    • J.M.

      February 16, 2014 at 4:39 PM

      thomas russo,
      Overall, what do you think of Marten’s & Jetlag’s preaching? What do you think, message wise, they are trying to get across?

       
      • thomas russo

        February 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM

        Anyone can beleive what they want their reality to become, but that does not make them correct not incorrect in ones view of what they preceive relegion to be, just keep it to ones self. I was brought up with one parent a sort of Roman Catholic and the other a Southern Babtist, as for myself I found it on both parts to be both rediculas to say the least, as for me, well I am just me and I to read quit extensively. As for reading one can go to a book store, Library and see a large number of books,magazines, new papers and so forth, but which ones are going to show the truth of the subject in ones mind?, and then again is there a truth. As for myself, can only convey and point out to what I have read and experience and nothing more.

         
    • J.M.

      February 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

      Re @ >February 16, 2014 at 7:35 PM < Your entire message.
      I'll try one last time. What message do you think Jetlag & Martens is conveying, saying, pointing out, trying to explain? What, in essence,are they trying to prove? OR, just answer this for me. Do you, thomas russo, think of yourself as an animal? Are you an animal? A simple yes, no, or don't know will answer my question. A non response from you will be deemed, regarded, understood by me, that you believe yourself to be an animal In that event, no response is necessary. shalom.

       
      • thomas russo

        February 16, 2014 at 10:58 PM

        No!, non animal, did not evolve from a monkey or any four leg beast, do hope that is satisfing. Now, should you want I can get down to the point of the subject in whole.

         
      • thomas russo

        February 16, 2014 at 11:01 PM

        The other point is that some “act” as animals which I would put into the class of “Psychopaths”.

         
    • J.M.

      February 17, 2014 at 12:23 AM

      To: thomas russo
      @ >Now, should you want I can get down to the point of the subject in whole.

      It depends. Here is what I WANT first. AND, you can answer it by either saying yes, no, or don’t know. Do you believe Jesus Christ was the Creator of the heavens & the earth ? Once again, yes, no or don’t know.

       
      • thomas russo

        February 17, 2014 at 10:06 AM

        No

         
      • J.M.

        February 17, 2014 at 9:25 PM

        thomas russo
        @ >Do you believe Jesus Christ was the Creator of the heavens & the earth ? Once again, yes, no or don’t know.

        I see you did answer, 7 hours later, my question with a No. What took you so long? I’ll presume you went to bed before you saw it. Anyway, thanks for being honest. That is a wonderful trait, being honest. I don’t have to ask you if Jesus Christ is our Savior, The Messiah, because I know you will say no to that too.This is why we have to part ways. BUT, thank you for being honest. shalom

         
      • thomas russo

        February 17, 2014 at 10:51 PM

        It took so long to respond to your question which was “NO” for my time is my time not yours.

         
    • J.M.

      February 17, 2014 at 2:51 AM

      Greetings Tommy,
      @ >Now, should you want I can get down to the point of the subject in whole.

      When I ask for a yes, no, or, don’t know, & your answer takes 52 words, instead of, yes, no, or, don’t know, my response to you Tom Boy Tommy, is, NO I don’t want you to get down to the point of the subject in whole. I have more books now than I could ever hope to read. ALSO, SPARKY, when I asked you IF Jesus Christ was the Creator of the Heavens & the Earth & ask you to simply answer by saying, yes, no, OR don’t know, & you avoid, keep away from that that question, I know ALL about you I need to know. ADIOS AMIGO. Get back in bed with Jetlag & Martens,

       
    • J.M.

      February 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM

      @ >It took so long to respond to your question which was “NO” for my time is my time not yours.

      Are you the one who created the Universe? I have been told by many good hearted, “God fearing” “Christians” that I AM in for a RUDE AWAKENING. Maybe they are right. Are you God? If you answer yes, you will see a lot of response to your claim, e.g., many will respond by telling me.We warned you, J.M. we told you that you were in for a rude awakening We tried to tell you repeatedly. Now you know, J.M. So, once again are you, whoever you are, God, The Creator & Sustainer of the Universe? A yes or no answer will be sufficient. A don’t know answer is out of the question. I’m beginning to think you just might be God because I noticed you share information on every or just about every thread that comes up & I have concluded that the reason you do not get any response to your shared information is because everybody else knows better than to question you.or comment They are fearful to respond because they don’t want to say anything that might upset you. They are afraid to even say thanks because that might not be saying enough. If you are not God, are you his spokesman? My knees are beginning to knock together from fear. I have to close now because I am so nervous I cannot type anymore.

       
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 12:25 AM

        Nothing to fear, never was just read in detail and do not listen to opinions of others, take it all with a crane of salt. No one has to fear anyone or any group, the fear is all in your mind, its actually your own illusion that one creates in their own mind set and that has to be overcome. There a illusion everywere and I am no more smarter than you and you are no more smarter than I and I read at least four hours a day and research everything and I mean everything. I have nothing against you or others, but there are those out there that want to know the truth and were it is to be had and its that simple and I never ever back down from anything and I mean anything. If I do not know I listen and never comment, but I will find out and one can bank on that. For me I am at peace and my peace I extent to all without reserve.

         
    • J.M.

      February 18, 2014 at 12:23 AM

      @ > “As for reading one can go to a book store, Library and see a large number of books,magazines, new papers and so forth, ……….”

      OH MY !!! I didn’t know that. I’m beginning to think YOU ARE GOD !!!

       
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 12:45 AM

        Yes, one can read any book in a library, but which one of the many books is the right ones to read is the question. As an example most think they live in the United States but just what is the United States?, so in order to answer the question one must know how it is defined and in order to define it one needs to find the definition and that definition is in the United States Code, for its their definition. So one picks up Volume 1 United States Code which includes Titles 1-4 (the Organic Law) while Title 5 is also included in Volume 1 which is for employees from section 101-5949, while at one time I never even knew of its existance, but I found out from someone like me and read Titles 1-4 and the 1803 Ohio bordered Constitution of which I go by and Article IV of Title 2 of Titles 1-4 as a free inhabitant with all the privileges and immunites of free state citizens. Now, in order to read this one must pay close attention to dates of entry along with the language used and sure it takes some time but you are about to take it apart to find out the truth for it is the foundation to which all exist and does not exist, should one be good a mechanic of things one will find what is and what is not. I never limit myself to one thing.

         
    • J.M.

      February 18, 2014 at 12:52 AM

      # >Stop attempting to be knowledgable in bible when only a thumper.

      Now you are starting to talk to yourself, but you don’t have to make it public. You really don’t. I’m Just a chip off the block of Alfred Adask in that every now & then I just like to have fun playing around with stupid. Once again, are you God or his spokesman? Are you knowledgeable in as you call it, in bible? A YES answer is expected & nothing else, not even No, or, don’t know. Do I expect you to say yes? YES, OF COURSE. If you asked me that question, I would answer, a little bit. BUT what I do know, I know that I know it. Hey, do me a favor, & you can cut & paste these words & you won’t even have to type them out.

      YES I AM KNOWLEDGEABLE IN BIBLE & PROUD OF IT.

       
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 11:29 AM

        I am what I am and yes very well read in your book and others like it, that is all variations of the pick a choose christianity and other relegious cults which include politics and popery.

         
    • J.M.

      February 18, 2014 at 1:09 AM

      @ >Nothing to fear, ………….”
      WHEW !!! WHAT A RELIEF !!! I only hope I understand it right. I understand you are saying you are not God. PLEASE tell me I FINALLY am understanding something RIGHT. I don’t want to be wrong about everything. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me I’m right, will you please? Please do.

       
    • J.M.

      February 18, 2014 at 4:46 PM

      @ >I am what I am and yes very well read in your book

      OH NO !!! NOW YOU ARE GOD AGAIN !!! Well that’s ok. I ant afeard of no yes I am & No, I ant God.

       
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 4:50 PM

        No need to comment to your drible, you loose, to what you claim is in legislative acts, it over rover you have no idea what you are addressing in your alleged deception of MOOA

         
    • J.M.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:20 AM

      @ > it over rover
      Naw. U joshin me.

       
    • Russell Arms

      June 29, 2015 at 3:03 AM

      thomas russo,
      @ Adam so to speak comes from the Greek which was taken from the Egyptian,
      SO TO SPEAK? I did not know Egypt existed when Adam was created. Adam is defined in the Hebrew language as, adam: man, mankind
      Original Word: אָדָם
      Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
      Transliteration: adam
      Phonetic Spelling: (aw-dawm’)
      Short Definition: man
      Is the Hebrew language derived from the Egyptian language? If so, I guess you are right, at least, so to speak.

       
  6. Martens

    February 13, 2014 at 11:10 PM

    J.M. “God’s word says there is a difference in a man & an animal. Does it or not.?”

    It does not. The word translated “animals” in 1 Corinthians 15:39, which you cited, is “ktenos” (G2934), which according to Strong’s means:

    “property, i.e. (specially) a domestic animal”.

    So God’s word says there is difference between man and property, i.e. (specially) a domestic animal.

    thomas russo:

    For a use of “human” that is consistent with “man”, see the Declaration of Independence:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

     
    • thomas russo

      February 13, 2014 at 11:23 PM

      All men are created equal. Human events is reference to the Political side of the issue not that of man but mankind is political and man natures creation is not part of mankind, look for the two meanings in Genesis one for man in the first creation and mankind in the other creation for there are two creations one dejure the other defacto.

       
      • EDOMS THORN

        February 15, 2014 at 8:21 AM

        “All men are created equal”? Does that phrase occur in scripture?

        God created ALL of Mankind, with each race serving a purpose, and each race benefiting from each others different purpose. All men are not created equal, but rather, ALL men are equally created for GODS purpose!

         
      • thomas russo

        February 16, 2014 at 12:52 AM

        Should you be attempting to go by a bible, there are two, repeat two creations there in, one of man and the other of mankind.
        If you are going by Title 1 in Volume 1 of the United States Code which is a Declaration of Independence in its Constitution which apears in 48 other Constitution the wording, all men are created equal means just that, however in legal ease all men are created equal, but all men are not equal according to the law and in the later since it means as defined in the Code while in the first since it refers to Article IV of Title 2 and Title 1 in Volume 1 United States Code the Organic Laws in which in Tile 2 at Article IV free inhabitants are intitled to all privileges and immunities of state citizen without being one which means a free inhabitant is an American, but not a United State citizen or citizen of the United States whom only has privileges and not substantive rights under the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation that were ratified and a Constitutional bordered state set forth like Ohio 1803 which is not subject to Title 4 or 5 of the Constitution of the United States or any of its legislative authority.

         
      • J.M.

        February 15, 2014 at 3:11 PM

        thomas russo
        @ > All men are created equal.
        What is your understanding of, All men are created equal.?

         
      • J.M.

        February 16, 2014 at 4:16 PM

        thomas russo
        @ >The word property is something one can not take with them in the end

        THEN I ain’t goin !! just joshin, I like that thought thomas russo. Yes indeed.

         
      • J.M.

        February 16, 2014 at 4:23 PM

        thomas russo
        @ >Should you be attempting to go by a bible, ………….

        A bible??? If you,thomas russo, go by “a bible” which bible do you go by? I like the remainder of your message

         
      • J.M.

        February 18, 2014 at 1:49 AM

        Re: @ No
        What do you suggest I read or watch video wise, that will prove or give evidence that Jesus Christ did not create the heavens & the earth? Also, what does the following scripture mean when it says;

        Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

        16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him; AND,

        John, 1
        1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

        2 The same was in the beginning with God.

        3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

         
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM

        My classes of the bible that was started by the Egyptians and then copied by the Greeks, then the Romans, then latin and Constintine paid scribes to make up a book that is known as a bible to pick and choose what was to be put into it and left out of it to controll people to serve the church and that is in breif and of course polotics, can not leave that out.

         
    • J.M.

      February 13, 2014 at 11:31 PM

      @ >So God’s word says there is difference between man and property, i.e. (specially) a domestic animal.
      I said to you before, that I have a parakeet & two goldfish & the parakeet & two goldfish ARE domesticated. ONE IS STILL A BIRD & the goldfish ARE STILL FISH. When the scriptures say there is a DIFFERENCE in MAN, ANIMALS & FISH.it either means what it says or it doesn’t. YOU Martens are once again saying THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. EVERY TIME there is a CLEAR Scripture some people have to make it NOT CLEAR. What does Strong’s say about MAN, FISH & BIRDS as described in ! Corinthians 15:39 AND DID GOD HAVE ANIMAL BREATH when He, God BREATHED into Adam the BREATH OF LIFE ??? ANSWER IT !!!!

       
      • thomas russo

        February 14, 2014 at 8:58 AM

        The differencd is in the wording of Domestic and non domestic, just as the mail is, for there is domestic mail and also non domestic, while all domestic mail is within the corporat arena and all non domestic is outside of it and Zip Code use shows that the four digit is federal and Zip plus four is international and it all falls under the UPU treaty that the District of Columbia is under.

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 29, 2015 at 3:12 AM

        J.M,
        @ Martens is, in other words, saying, Man is the King Kong ape pounding his chest with PRIDE that he, King Kong, is BIG DADDY over the remainder of God’s creation.
        J.M. YOU ARE FULL OF Les U Know WHO. Les Les Les. How much more of Les can we take? D

         
    • Yartap

      February 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM

      Martens,

      You just showed a difference between man and animals. Man has dominion over animals as property.

       
      • J.M.

        February 14, 2014 at 4:11 PM

        Shalom, Brother Yartap,

        @You just showed a difference between man and animals. Man has dominion over animals as property.

        Martens is, in other words, saying, Man is the King Kong ape pounding his chest with PRIDE that he, King Kong, is BIG DADDY over the remainder of God’s creation.

         
      • Jetlag

        February 14, 2014 at 6:10 PM

        Yartap,

        Martens showed a difference between man and domestic animals. The word “ktenos” (G2934) refers to domestic animals, specifically. Man is not a ktenos.

         
      • Yartap

        February 14, 2014 at 7:17 PM

        Jetlag, 1Corinthians 15:39, All FLESH is NOT the SAME!: but there is ONE KIND of FLESH of MEN, another flesh of BEAST, another of FISHES, and another of BIRDS.

        Man is not a “ktenos.” I’m glad to hear you say that.

        Oh, but, Paul would say that the wild beast have the same flesh as man. Right? Now, you and I know that Paul has not said that; and a statement like that is WRONG! You and I know that MAN rules over all domesticated and non-domesticated animal flesh. And you and I know that there is ONLY ONE FLESH for MAN; and that ALL FLESH IS NOT THE SAME. A little reasoning goes a long way. Try again Jetlag.

         
      • J.M.

        February 14, 2014 at 7:58 PM

        @ > February 14, 2014 at 7:17 PM < Your entire message
        Way to go Bro. !!

         
      • Martens

        February 14, 2014 at 10:20 PM

        Jetlag: “Martens showed a difference between man and domestic animals.”

        Thanks for reading for comprehension.

        To review:

        1 Corinthians 15:39 mentions four kinds of flesh as not being the same:

        1. man
        2. “ktenos” (i.e. domestic animals)
        3. birds
        4. fish

        So from this verse we know there are at least four distinct categories of animal.

         
      • thomas russo

        February 15, 2014 at 5:46 AM

        The word property is something one can not take with them in the end, the word should be poccessions for in that it is nine tenths of the law to the holder, for no one can own property that was not created by one. Even though some may say they own something it is not true for it is only in pocession and a peace of paper is a “thing”, all “things” that make up something come from the earth and no part of it that came from the earth can be claimed as created

         
      • J.M.

        February 15, 2014 at 6:03 PM

        @ >A little reasoning goes a long way. Try again Jetlag.
        Agreed, A little reasoning DOES go a long way. But Jetlag AND Martens say people like you, Yartap, & me & YES, even Alfred Adask too, are unreasonable. It’s the GOOD v. the BAD. Remember them using scripture that says, let no man judge you in what you may eat or drink? I wonder what SEWER RATS taste like. RAW or COOKED. URINE MUST be a good beverage. WOW !!! just think of ALL the urine beverages we could try out, like the wine tasters do.

         
      • J.M.

        February 16, 2014 at 5:53 AM

        @ Now, you and I know that Paul has not said that; and a statement like that is WRONG

        It is a statement inspired of Satan, OR, one or more of the third of the fallen angels a.k.a. DEMONS, Satan’s co-horts.This makes it WORSE than wrong.

         
      • J.M.

        February 16, 2014 at 5:39 PM

        @ > “You just showed a difference between man and animals. Man has dominion over animals as property.”

        Apparently Marten’s does not understand what you said, Yartap. I can just see him scratching his head.

         
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 9:10 PM

      @“When in the Course of human events
      Those things that are described as “human events” are most certainly JUST THAT. In fact, I would call them sub-human. HUMAN is used to describe something AWFUL, ATROCIOUS, BARBARIC, etc. Like snarling WILD rabies infected wolves It’s the “human events” themselves.As Yartap says, try again. What else ya got? It’s ACTING like wild beasts or animals. I’m entitled to my opinion just as much as you are. At least you are not using the word of God in this particular.

       
    • J.M.

      February 19, 2014 at 10:13 PM

      Martens
      @>Jetlag: “Martens showed a difference between man and domestic animals.”
      @ >Thanks for reading for comprehension.

      reading comprehension. reading comprehension. reading comprehension. reading comprehension. reading comprehension. reading comprehension. reading comprehension.

      HOW ABOUT SOME UNDERSTANDING COMPREHENSION IN WHAT IS READ (< pronounced red)

       
  7. Adask

    February 13, 2014 at 11:58 PM

    After the flood, Noah and his family got out of their ship and,

    “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” Genesis 9:30

    If every living thing includes all animals, and animals include men, then God approved of cannibalism in Genesis 9:3. I.e. we are entitled by God to eat other people.

    If we strike fear into the heard of every animal and beast, but we don’t strike fear into the hearts of each other, how can we be animals?

    How can we eat each other if Genesis 9:6 warns that “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” If we can’t kill each other because we’re made in God’s image how can we cannibalize each other? Wait around until somebody dies by natural causes and then feast on his corpse?

    On the other hand, we can eat right now if we kill an animal/beast since they are not made in God’s image, it seems obvious that God did not authorize cannibalism.

    Those who believe man is merely another animal support cannibalism. Those who read the Bible and don’t try to make an ass out of themselves by arguing beliefs that are clearly absurd, do not believe in any significant spiritual equality between man and animals and therefore do not believe in cannibalism.

    Unless God believes in cannibalism, man can’t be an “animal” or “beast” under the Jewish and Christian faiths.

     
    • J.M.

      February 14, 2014 at 6:52 PM

      14 And if you walk in obedience to me and keep my decrees and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.” < And IF IF IF. this to me, simply means, as long as you, Solomon, CONTINUE to do these things. He, Solomon,somewhere down the road, quit continuing & did a 180. It is my understanding that he came back to his senses at least enough LATER, to give the "conclusion" of the entire "affair." Respect God & keep his Commandments & FEAR the consequences of not doing so.

      Solomon DID do, FOR A WHILE, that which is stated above. BUT only for a while. Then, he saw the "women folk" Satan KNOWS where our weak spot is. He that overcomes, I think, is a real war in itself. As far as ALL these women folk go, we better believe that God warned of the terrible consequences. They found out the hard way. about that too. I am positive that it's some where in the scriptures where God WARNED both David & Solomon about what they would be getting into by having MORE than ONE wife. Yartap is good at finding things like this for me. He knows what I am asking for Now Brother Alfred, I don't think it will be hard at all for "you" to understand that there are "certain women" who know how to make a man senseless, for a while anyway. It matters not how wise the man is. Solomon was not a robot. Need to contact Yartap. Shalom Beloved Brother & "others"

       
    • J.M.

      February 14, 2014 at 8:15 PM

      John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. < This is what I meant. I love you in this sense

       
      • Adask

        February 14, 2014 at 8:49 PM

        I get that. But it’s a lot easier for me to love God than it is to love my fellow man. However, the commandment is “love thy neighbor as thyself.” I won’t say that I’m in love with myself, so I don’t easily love anyone else. However, I do like me (most of the time), and so I will “like my neighbor as I like myself”. In the end, I understand that verse doesn’t teach us to “love” everyone else, it teaches us to treat others with the same amount of respect as we have for ourselves. I respect you, just the same as I respect myself. If my understanding of the verse is valid, then that’s about as good as it gets (at least for me).

         
      • J.M.

        February 14, 2014 at 10:59 PM

        Per love your neighbor as yourself. Luke 10

        29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

        30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

        31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

        32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

        33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

        34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

        35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

        36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

        37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

        Alfred, YOU are my neighbor, you are merciful to me within this meaning.Since, there are going to be some people thrown into the lake of fire, I don’t think we are commanded to love THOSE kind of people.

         
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 12:46 AM

      Ecclesiastes 3:18
      I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.< some translations say animals, not beasts.

      I think this how "Wesley" of/in Wesley's Notes understood this verse & I understand it this way too.

      3:18 I said – And further I considered concerning their condition in this present world. That God – God suffers these disorders among men, that he might discover men to themselves, and shew what strange creatures they are, and what vile hearts they have. Beasts – That altho' God made them men, yet they have made themselves beasts by their brutish practices, and that, considered only with respect to the present life, they are as vain and miserable creatures as the beasts themselves.I think this how "Wesley" of/in Wesley's Notes understood it.I understand it this way too.

      Being "LIKE" something & being that something is different. I knew a guy who could cackle LIKE a chicken but he was not a chicken. He could moo LIKE a cow but he was not a cow. He could "oink" LIKE a pig but he was not a pig. He could bark like a dog but he was not a dog. Why say more. He could make SOUNDS just LIKE many other creatures but he was not those creatures.

       
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 3:20 PM

      “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”
      Any bible student, I would think, understands what this means. Adam & Eve were instructed to do the SAME thing but apparently do not think it means the SAME thing. I think it’s interesting, & I could elaborate, but, I don’t want to bore anyone.

       
      • J.M.

        February 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM

        Correction
        “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”
        Any bible student, I would think, understands what this means. Adam & Eve were instructed to do the SAME thing but people apparently do not think it means the SAME thing as per the command or instructions given to Noah & his sons. Replenish? Repopulate? You betcha it means this. But, who cares? Where is everybody?

         
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 4:01 PM

      @ > According to 1 Kings 11:1-6,………………….”
      According to Jeremiah, who was inspired by “God” to write these words, I believe they are true. Solomon undoubtedly could not get it up, excuse me, get up out of bed anymore, there we go, & the only way he could “please” his harem was to have shrines, etc built in their honor & for their gods.

       
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 5:30 PM

      @ > I read Ecclesiastes 3:18 to be an expression of Solomon’s personal opinion that men who are made in God’s image should avoid “acting like beasts” less they ultimately be judged as “beasts” by our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.

      I understand it EXACTLY the same way too !!! BUT, apparently Martens & Jetlag STILL believe that EVEN Jesus Christ was at least HALF an animal. It takes a lot to ruffle my feathers but THEY sho do get umm ruffled & I MEAN BAD !!! Post some more Justice being rendered videos like in Rocky, if & when you get a chance. Also, don’t admire me. I’m serious. Just liking me is overwhelming. I’ll do my best to not disappoint you, & if & when I do, just give me one chance & only one chance to straighten it out. I am not a yes man. but It’s yes yes yes if it makes sense.

       
    • Russell Arms

      June 29, 2015 at 3:27 AM

      Adask,
      @ “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
      And isn’t it interesting that “God” said the same thing to Adam & Eve. “Replenish”. This should at least give a “HINT” towards accounting for the thousands of years of the existence of the earth BEFORE Adam was created. It’s another long story for another place & another time.

       
  8. J.M.

    February 14, 2014 at 12:50 AM

    It is beyond my grasp why you, Alfred Adask, are not the Pastor of a “Church of God”. The only reason I can fathom is, like German lady, asked, where is everybody. I find your message to be another one that was pleasing for you to write. I know how it affected me.Then right off the bat, Martens is trying to knock it in the head. I’m sorry BUT that is the way it seems to me.And I’m trying to learn to be humble.I thought I was making some progress. But it’s like he is saying NO!!! this is the way it is, & NOT the way Alfred Adask or anyone understands it. I’m sorry sir, But I don’t like ANYBODY saying YOU are an animal. It REALLY DOES NOT bother me for him to say I am an animal. But it makes me ANGRY for him to say you & people like Julie,Timmy, Skip Robinson & some “others” are. At least this is my understanding of what he is doing.

     
  9. Adask

    February 14, 2014 at 1:59 AM

    I don’t believe I’m called or competent to be a minister. I’m a watcher on the wall. It’s a good, blue collar job and that’s just about right for me. I can take my lunch with me to work each day in a brown paper bag, I get to stand on the wall and see some of what’s going on, and then I get to try to report what I see to others. I couldn’t ask for a better job.

    Also, J.M., I notice your understanding and your support. I very much appreciative of both. You save me a lot of time and aggravation. You wind up fighting some of the “intellectual” battles I might either be drawn into, or feel aggravated about because I don’t have time to fight.

    I really do appreciate your efforts.

    Thanks.

     
    • J.M.

      February 14, 2014 at 3:27 PM

      @ > I don’t believe I’m called or competent to be a minister.
      How humble it is for you to say, I don’t believe “I’m called.” How wonderful. It sure touched my heart.
      Look at all the “preachers” who have no doubt he/SHE was CALLED. I love you Alfred Adask. HOWEVER, I knew sooner or later I would disagree with you about something. You say you don’t believe you are “competent to be a minister.” Nay nay dear friend & beloved brother. You ARE VERY COMPETENT. It’s the “calling” that counts. IF “God” calls you, you will know & KNOW that you know. Most other so called preachers HAVE been called, by the “god” of this present evil world. I would like to post what I call “How it began, with Solomon.” But I have been honest about some of my comments only partially posting & maybe it’s due to the length of them. I love you Alfred Adask, & “others” TOO

       
      • J.M.

        February 14, 2014 at 3:41 PM

        Solomon, how it began

        At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon during the night in a dream, and God said, “Ask for whatever you want me to give you.” ( < This is a TEST. What is written below is the secret for happiness & fulfillment in life. Solomon "started out HUMBLE" His request touched the heart of God, like in, here is a man after my own heart. There IS a lot said in what follows about BOTH God's character & the humbleness of Solomon, as it "started out".)
        1 Kings 3
        6-Solomon answered, “You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David, because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day.

        7 “Now, Lord my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties. 8 Your servant is here among the people you have chosen, a great people, too numerous to count or number. 9 So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?”

        10 The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11 So God said to him, “Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12 I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. 13 Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for—both wealth and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings. 14 And if you walk in obedience to me and keep my decrees and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.”

        THIS IS the "God" want to be a BONDSERVANT of the one WHO DOES CARE !!!

         
      • Adask

        February 14, 2014 at 6:08 PM

        Not everyone who is competent to be a minister is called to be one. Some people, despite being technically competent to be a minister, are perhaps even better suited (and called) to be a “watchman”. For now, that’s me. Watchman. If the Good LORD wants to call me to be or do something else, that’s fine with me. If the Good LORD wants to call me to clean septic tanks, that’s fine with me. The issue is not WHAT you’re “called” to do, but rather the fact that you are “CALLED” in the first place. Some say we’re all called, but only a few are chosen. If so, being “called” is secondary to being “chosen”. I’m not convinced that all are “called”. I can think of a number of people who I’ve known–some on this blog–that I have a hard time understanding how they were “called” (unless the Good LORD calls some of us to be total jerks). But I could be wrong. Maybe we are all called. But if so, there’s a huge number of people who have flat-out rejected that call. I may not (yet) be “chosen”. But I am called, and I’m no rejecting that calling.

        As for you J.M., I don’t claim to love many people. I’ve loved my grandmother, a couple of women, my kids, our Father. Other than that, I use the word “love” very selectively, and I can’t bring myself to say that I “love” you, J.M. But I like you a lot. I have a growing affection for you. Not simply because of what you write on this blog, but for what you’ve overcome. If I understand, you’ve had to overcome or at least deal with one more serious and persistent problems.

        I have also had a burden or two to face and try to overcome. Therefore, I have some appreciation for how much stronger people become when they’re faced with significant and even unfair obstructions in their lives. So I not only like you, J.M., I admire you insofar as I can imagine your struggle, how hard you’ve worked, and how little that struggle has been recognized or respected by others.

        Although we were prefer to play with the other kids, our personal handicaps tend to isolate us. But in that isolation, we learn other skills that the other kids will never really know, and probably won’t ever appreciate. No matter. We come to appreciate and respect our own skills. More, importantly, in the midst of our isolation, we become more sensitive to the Holy Spirit’s soft whispering. Isolated by handicaps from the world, we may learn that we’re not really alone at all.

        i suspect that you may have learned that lesson, and that’s why I like and even admire you.

         
    • Russell Arms

      June 29, 2015 at 3:32 AM

      Adask,
      @ Also, J.M., I notice your understanding and your support. I very much appreciative of both. You save me a lot of time and aggravation. You wind up fighting some of the “intellectual” battles I might either be drawn into, or feel aggravated about because I don’t have time to fight.

      I really do appreciate your efforts.

      Really? :-) Sometimes you “may” but most of the time you do not. Least it seems this way.

       
  10. Yartap

    February 14, 2014 at 12:27 PM

    It seems to me, that with any and all court cases, no matter the crime or offense, one should start a defense using the govt.’s definition of Man or other Animals, to show that government’s laws only apply to animals and not a man made in God’s image.

     
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 12:36 PM

      Good morning Sunshine,
      Yartap, presuming for the sake of a point ONLY, that man is an animal, tell me just ONE of any OTHER animal that can be charged with a crime per the drug laws.

       
  11. Adrian

    February 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM

    Corporations own property.If you as a man use a corporate name,you are property.
    An animal is property.The rest is history.

     
    • Tony

      February 14, 2014 at 1:34 PM

      Adrian,

      I am not saying you are wrong, but you are using a logical fallacy.

      All Ford Mustangs are cars.

      Therefore, if you are a car, you are a Ford Mustang.

      With this analogy, cars represents all property and Ford Mustangs represents all property that is an animal.

      Not all property is an animal. Such as houses, hammers, door knobs, etc.

       
      • J.M.

        February 14, 2014 at 3:49 PM

        Hi Tony,
        @ Therefore, if you are a car, you are a Ford Mustang.
        Not Adrian, Adrian is a ROLLS ROYCE. I like your comment Tony, very much.

         
    • J.M.

      February 14, 2014 at 3:31 PM

      Adrian,
      @ The rest is history.
      YOU soon will be too. But, so will I.

       
    • thomas russo

      February 15, 2014 at 5:32 AM

      Great comment, and you are correct. Happen to know how it all fits in the seceam of “things”.

       
  12. Adrian

    February 14, 2014 at 2:46 PM

    A corporate man is viewed as property.After all is the collateral for the strawman.
    An animal in general is the collateral for the named animal in particular.
    Collateral is property under the legal system.
    Man and other animals are collateral property on Global Plantation.

     
    • J.M.

      February 14, 2014 at 3:52 PM

      Adrian,
      @ > Man and other animals are collateral property on Global Plantation.
      Who is Big Daddy? I mean, the flesh & blood, BIG DADDY.

       
  13. palani

    February 14, 2014 at 6:02 PM

    According to Bouvier (under VALUE, common law)
    Value differs from price. The latter is applied to live cattle and ani-mals; in a declaration, therefore, for taking cattle, they ought to be said to be of such a price; and in a declaration for taking dead chattels or those which never had life, it ought to lay them to be of such a value. 2 Lilly’s Ab. 620

    I have never seen the reference 2 Lilly’s Ab. 620 and it would be interesting to find this cite but it would seem if a man has a price then he would be an animal. I would equate this to some activity in the commercial venue/plane.

     
    • J.M.

      February 14, 2014 at 11:22 PM

      palani
      @ but it would seem if a man has a price then he would be an animal
      @ > I would equate this to some activity in the commercial venue/plane.
      Agreed. BUT, who is the creator or who “inspired” men to have this kind of commercial venue/plane?

       
      • J.M.

        February 15, 2014 at 11:10 PM

        Ohhh palani,
        I forgot to ask you.Have you regained your composure yet, since my last visit with you, on the other thread? heh -heh. I know that, you don’t have to tell me it’s very hard to do. I understand.

         
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 4:46 PM

      Shalom, palani,
      Maybe what follows is a good example of the “price” of a slave
      Tis a sad but true story
      From the Bible it came
      And it tells us how Judas
      Sold the Savior in shame
      He planned with the council
      Of high priest that day
      30 pieces of silver
      Was the price they would pay

      30 pieces of silver
      30 sheckles of shame
      Was the price paid for Jesus
      On the cross he was slain
      Betrayed and forsaken
      Unloved and unclaimed
      In anger they pierced him
      But he died not in VAIN
      Twas on there on the hillside
      The multitude came
      And found our dear Savior
      Then took him away
      They bruised Him and mocked Him
      Thorns were crowned around his head
      And his garment of purple
      Showed the blood stains of red

      Far off in the mountains with his face towards the sun
      Judas begged mercy for what he had done
      He gave back the silver
      For his heart filled with strife
      Then there in the mountain he took his own life

      30 pieces of silver
      30 sheckles of shame
      Was the price paid for Jesus
      On the cross he was slain

       
  14. J.M.

    February 14, 2014 at 8:07 PM

    @The issue is not WHAT you’re “called” to do, but rather the fact that you are “CALLED” in the first place.
    This is what I was trying to say. Exactly as you say above. I tried to say, it takes a humble man to say he doesn’t think he has been called.

     
    • Russell Arms

      June 29, 2015 at 3:49 AM

      Adask,
      @ The issue is not WHAT you’re “called” to do, but rather the fact that you are “CALLED” in the first place.

      The Hi REV Kenneth Copeland, &, many other Hi Revs, e.g., Hi REV Jessie Jackson, Hi REV Al Sharpton, Hi Rev Curtis Black, et.al., disagree vehemently. It takes a worried man to really know how to sing a worried song too. I’m worried now, but I won’t be worried for too much longer. :-)

       
  15. Yartap

    February 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM

    Greetings Jim,

    I have not found any specific verses directed towards King David about large numbers of wives; but I know of the general regulation for kings found in Deut. 17:17 which states that a king must not take “many” or “multiply” wives unto himself to keep from being lead away. How many is too many? My guess would be as many as he wished; as long as, he is not turned away from the Lord. The twelve tribes of Israel came from four wives.

     
    • J.M.

      February 14, 2014 at 9:36 PM

      @ >The twelve tribes of Israel came from four wives.
      Yartap, not sure I’m following you here. What Israelite, Son of Jacob, had 4 wives at the same time? God ALLOWS us to do anything we want to. Anyway, I know it’s in the scriptures somewhere, i.e., the warning about biting off more than we can chew & this means in reference to anything too. If you can, somehow, pass this scripture on to Alfred. > John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.< I told Alfred I loved him. I meant it in this sense, as John 13:34 says. NOT in ANY OTHER WAY. The "red letter" reply buttons do not appear on many comments, & I get mixed up on how to send a comment to that particular message.

       
      • J.M.

        February 16, 2014 at 5:39 AM

        Per: Love “one another.” It’s important to know WHO “one another” are. AND, we also have this to struggle to achieve.

        But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
        Love your enemies? There are two kinds of love, involving the same general feeling, or springing from the same fountain of goodwill to all mankind, but differing so far as to admit of separation in idea. The one is that feeling by which we approve of the conduct of another, commonly called the love of complacency; the other, that by which we wish well to the person of another, though we cannot approve his conduct. This is the love of benevolence, and this love we are to bear toward our enemies. It is impossible to love the conduct of a person who curses and reviles us, who injures our person or property, or who violates all the laws of God; but, though we may hate his conduct, and suffer keenly when we are affected by it, yet we may still wish well to the person; we may pity his madness and folly; we may speak kindly of him and to him; we may return good for evil; we may aid him in the time of trial; we may seek to do him good here and to promote his eternal welfare hereafter, Romans 12:17-20. This seems to be what is meant by loving our enemies; and this is a special law of Christianity, and the highest possible test of piety, and probably the most difficult of all duties to be performed. I have a LONG way to go to accomplish this feat.BUT, I think most other people do too. Personally, I don’t see how this can be accomplished but we can at least make the effort. I think we will be given credit for trying. It at least shows we are trying. It, to me, is another one of these use your head situations. If I see some brute kicking around a little child, I am going to do my best to give the BRUTE some, no, a LOT of his own medicine.

         
    • J.M.

      February 14, 2014 at 10:22 PM

      Deut.17:17
      Neither shall he multiply wives < For this would necessarily lead to foreign alliances, and be the means of introducing the manners and customs of other nations, and their idolatry also. Solomon sinned against this precept, and brought ruin on himself and on the land by it; see 1 Kings 11:4.

      King David apparently not having enough WOMEN & became so “open” in his moral beliefs that he felt free to go after another man’s wife, and the end result of the affair, setting up the husband to be killed in battle, and the death of the infant child resulted in David’s house being marked by the sword of the Lord, as long as the king lived (2 Sam. 12:9-11). Psalm 51 shows that David repented from this evil sinful act But only AFTER the Sword of the "Lord struck"
      While this idea of having more than one wife may seem rather thrilling and exciting for some modern day Don Juans, they find out & very unpleasantly,sooner or later, it ain't quite like they thought it would be
      Common sense tells me that God made ONE woman for Adam, to be with Adam, to walk by his "side" etc. Paul says, “Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.” – 1 Cor. 7:2-4 (NKJV) ONE wife & ONE husband.
      ALSO, 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 has a little something to say about ONE wife. HOWEVER, IF a man wants MORE, God says, go for it dummy.< my thought.

       
    • Russell Arms

      June 29, 2015 at 4:00 AM

      Yartap,
      @ I have not found any specific verses directed towards King David about large numbers of wives;
      “God” expects us to use some common sense TOO & he allows us to learn some things the HARD WAY.The “Wisest Fool” who ever lived knows what I mean. Ain’t that RIGHT KING SOLOMON? The wisest fool that ever lived. I know he did a 180, but Here is HOW I hope he ended up, meaning, I hope he practiced what he preached. He SAID, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. < Now that IS a very wise statement there.

       
  16. Peg-Powers

    February 14, 2014 at 9:43 PM

    I read somewhere that someone switched babies at the time of SOLOMON’S (sun and moon) birth, which might explain the depth of the hypocrisy, the wealth, power, arrogance, sin and further development of the demonic secret brotherhood called the Masonic Order (ma/son–my sons). Two of my uncles found it “imperative” to join the Masons in order to keep their jobs here in Oregon, one a city manager, the other as an Oregon State Policeman.

    I’m so glad that Alfred shares the truth with us about Solomon. Jesus is always mentioned as the son (offspring) of David…..for good reason.

     
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 6:25 PM

      Peg-Powers,
      @ >Two of my uncles found it “imperative” to join the Masons in order to keep their jobs here in Oregon, one a city manager, the other as an Oregon State Policeman.

      I would really like to know more about this. I honestly believe what you said is TRUE. I had a lot of pressure put on me to do the same thing but “something” would not let me become interested. I never knew why there was this something about masonry that seemed to be wrong, etc. but guess what, a 33rd degree Mason told me why my suspicions were valid & correct. Tell me more, if you will, your understanding of your two Uncles experiences. shalom

       
  17. UglyTruth

    February 15, 2014 at 1:42 AM

    Criticism of a mistranslation doesn’t count for much.

    I said in mine heart concerning the DBR of the sons of men, that Elohim might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are BHM

    DBR:
    speech, word, speaking, thing
    speech
    saying, utterance
    word, words
    business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner (by extension)

    BHM:a beast, so called from being unable to speak.

    The idea that the sons of men are effectively mute says nothing about mankind in general, and does not imply that the sons of men are animals anymore than mutes are animals.

     
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 3:20 AM

      UglyTruth
      @ > Criticism of a mistranslation doesn’t count for much.
      @ > Criticism, who did this? What mistranslation? Why did you say what you said. above?
      Thank you in advance for you response?

       
      • UglyTruth

        February 15, 2014 at 1:56 PM

        Hebrew does not translate well into English. Unlike English, the underlying meanings of Hebrew words describe intangibles/archetypes. The KJV translator apparently didn’t understand the meaning of the verse, which resulted in a translation that did not represent the idea conveyed by the original text.

        Therefore is the name of it called BBL; because YHWH did there confound the language of all the earth…
        Gen 11:9

        BBL: Babel or Babylon = “confusion (by mixing)”

         
    • J.M.

      February 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM

      UglyTruth,
      Thank you for your response. IF IF IF I am understanding you, I cannot grasp that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of “God” & yet it is not to be understood by at least SOME people. I’m not saying to understand it in its entirety, like Christian Gains & EDOMS THORN say they do, but that which IS important & necessary for people to know & understand so they can eventually be with their Creator for eternity. Jesus Christ was on the earth a LONG time LATER after the Tower of Babel event. Anyway, thanks again, for responding.

       
      • thomas russo

        February 16, 2014 at 8:02 PM

        The ugly truth is that jesus christ was not the creator, just pointed out that God was in one (you). Should one really get deep into the subject of Gods, creations, prophets and so forth, one will find out the truth, but one should have an open mind to be become concious.

         
  18. J.M.

    February 16, 2014 at 9:38 PM

    @ The ugly truth is that jesus christ was not the creator, …….”
    What an UGLY LIE. Thank you for letting me know & rather QUICK TOO, where you really stand. YOU are standing on quicksand my friend. I STAND on THE ROCK OF AGES !!! ALL of YOU & YOUR KIND ALWAYS start out with GOOD BAIT, & YES I BITE, but I have always missed the HOOK, at least so far. I’m getting a little better at discovering where SOME CREEPS like YOU are coming from. You are just another FOX or, POSSUM is a better word to describe you, You’re just another POSSUM in the hen house. Possum you are, There are others who are FOXES & POSSUMS all in ONE. and YOU are one for all & ALL for One…………….ANOTHER !!!

     
    • thomas russo

      February 17, 2014 at 10:49 PM

      I see said the wise man, you like to sit in the seat of judgement and yet you make claim to the rock of ages what hypocracy of your alleged possion.

       
      • J.M.

        February 17, 2014 at 11:20 PM

        @ >possion.

        I only have a 6th grade education so help me out here. What is “possion?” Are you saying that telling the truth is judging? Don’t you know the difference between judging & telling the truth? U are saying Jesus IS a LIAR. I don’t like you calling my friend who died for me, a LIAR. Was Jesus judging when he said, go tell that FOX, well I’m sure you know what he said to tell that FOX. NO Sparky, you ain’t clever enough to be a FOX. U IS a POSSUM.
        .Possion? <what's that?

         
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM

        It all depends on what your definition of is, is. Sorry for the miss spelling it should be position, have a rotery cup issue and typing is a bit hard at times. Not saying your jesus is a liar for liars have to exist in order to lie, and he allegedly said, “mother what have I to do with you”, nice guy, by the way I am a man and you have never walked in my shoes and at one time I was almost like you and I thank the most high for seeing what most with eyes cannot see for they are blind and know it not.

         
      • J.M.

        February 18, 2014 at 12:02 PM

        @ > “…………..and I thank the most high…………”

        Most High??? WHO or WHAT is this Most High. is as in is < define most high, as IS.

         
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

        It’s the phrase Patric Henry used when he smelled the rats in congress, meaning the deception that was perpetrated on others. All Constitutions are Mesionic encluding the bible, one just has to get through the maze of deceptions to figure it out and its right in front of everyone, start with Volume 1 United States Code which includes Titles 1-4 the Organic laws and Title 5 sections 101-5949 pay attention to dates of entry in Titles 1-4 and language used, have fun.

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 29, 2015 at 4:14 AM

        thomas russo,
        @ Not saying your jesus is a liar for liars have to exist in order to lie, and he allegedly said, mother what have I to do with you”, nice guy,
        OHhhhhhhhhh Tommy !! What did Jesus SAY AFTER HE SAID, Mother, what have I to do with you.? WHY did you leave OUT what he said NEXT, TomMOUSE?

         
  19. ct3

    February 18, 2014 at 3:37 AM

    Jeremiah wrote Lamentations. Solomon wrote 3 books only. . . . the queen of Sheba is the queen of Ethiopia who visited Solomon and proved him with abtruse questions. . . . Queen Bathsheba became the wife of David after her spouse Uriah was killed. . . . Jacob had two official wives. But Jacob had 4 wives if you count Bilhah and Zilpah [ Genesis chapter 30 ] . And the twelve tribes descended from these 4 mothers. . . . re: john chapter two { Wedding at Cana } — Jesus did not say to His mother ” what have i to do with thee?” Check out the Greek and/or other translations. He said something like “what to me and to thee?” – yet He still fulfilled her wishes.

     
  20. ct3

    February 18, 2014 at 4:08 AM

    well parts of the book of Proverbs were written by others – like chapter 30 and 31. . . . deuteronomy 17 also gives other guidelines for kings, like, not multiplying gold and silver, not multiplying horses, and a seeming allusion to staying aloof from Egypt. Solomon made alliance with Pharoah and brought horses out of Egypt – what it says not to do in Deuteronomy 17, or what it seems to imply there.

     
    • J.M.

      February 18, 2014 at 2:43 PM

      ct3
      Really do appreciate you in depth perception ct3. I truly do. Isn’t it a “head scratcher” about how the wisest man on earth, at that time, became a, as Alfred Adask says, a, freakin moron.It makes me wonder if any of us can “overcome” & endure until the end. We can only try & trust as Duck Hunter says, think his name & family name is, Phil Robertson.

       
      • J.M.

        February 18, 2014 at 2:50 PM

        YOUR, not you, in depth perception. Your in depth perception I can NEVER see my errors & it doesn’t matter how many times I read my comment over, I can NEVER see the errors UNTIL AFTER the message goes through. WHY IS THIS???

         
  21. ct3

    February 18, 2014 at 4:41 AM

    after my incredulous disdain of certain blatant mispellings [ a “crane of salt” , the ‘seceam of things’, ” rediculas, and so much more ) , i have now misspelled “Pharaoh” !

     
    • J.M.

      February 18, 2014 at 3:11 PM

      @ >after my incredulous disdain of certain blatant mispellings………….”

      thomas russo, a.k.a. Sparky, READS too much. He doesn’t have the time to learn how to spell. BUT I am not any different in that area either. Keep commenting ct3, please do. It’s impossible for me to try & reason with animals,etc. I KNOW you don’t think of yourself as an animal, as a few high level readers & their higher than high level understanding of their high level reading think they are.
      There is a poster, Yartap, who “spars” with those “Intelligensia-us-es” & he does a good job of taking on two heavyweights too. I almost said, I am proud of him but I better not say I’m proud of him. I think I should say, Yartap pleases me with his chew on this message from him to them. I wonder if Yartap knows by now that they don’t chew on it, they SPIT it OUT. Keep commenting ct3.

       
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 3:36 PM

        Comments and information are two different issues.
        As for miss spellings, they happen when one does not read what one wrote before sending it out, called proof reading, which I do only when composing upon paper first, so I just flow when I type.
        I have no idea what HARPE is, and I do not like addressing acronyms, its and attempt to cover something not known.

         
    • Russell Arms

      June 29, 2015 at 4:23 AM

      ct3
      @ after my incredulous disdain of certain blatant mispellings [ a “crane of salt” , the ‘seceam of things’, ” rediculas, and so much more ) , i have now misspelled “Pharaoh” !
      AND THAT IS UNEXCUSEABLE. You may have very well committed the UNPARDONABLE SIN !! Misspelling those other words can be overlooked BUT!! NOT PHARAOH !! PHARAOH WAS GOD !!
      At least he THOUGHT HE WAS !! :-) D

       
  22. ct3

    February 18, 2014 at 5:51 AM

    Not only did i mess up on certain punctuation marks, i also misspelled the word ” abstruse ” ! i give up !

     
    • J.M.

      February 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

      ct3
      NO !!! Don’t you dare give up!! You are one of the “good guys.” It was uplifting to read your comments. It is uplifting to “see” another who UNDERSTANDS. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
      Tell me more. I CAN learn something from you, ct3. So can ANY others who want to LEARN more.

       
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 12:57 PM

        when the word men apears it is plural and is referance to beast, the word man is singular and is not a beast in ct3 discussion. One has to go to the creation of which there are two creations that of man and that of mankind and it works the same in relegion and politcs for they are both cults by deifinition, its all pick and choose, republican/democrate/Roman Catholic/babtist/protestant/moslem/hindu/ and so forth. Man is seperate from the beast not part of mankind, for man has dominion over everything of the earth and it works the same as in Article IV of the Articles of Confederation to wit free inahbitants have all privileges and immunities of state citizens without being one which goes back to the Original Bordered Constitution of which ratified the Articles of Confederation and established a bordered Constitution like Ohio did in 1803 not 1851 Read Volume 1 United States Code which includes Titles1-4 to figure it out, this is the law no one wants you to read, pay close attention to date of entry

         
    • J.M.

      February 18, 2014 at 5:43 PM

      ct3
      @ >Not only did i mess up on certain punctuation marks, i also misspelled the word ” abstruse ” ! i give up

      You had better not give up. People’s whose hearts are in the right place know EXACTLY what you meant. I know what thomas russo’s misspellings meant. But, ct3, he is not like you. He is here to deceive & misguide & lead astray. I play around with him on his misspellings. I too, make a lot of errors in misspelled words, punctuation, etc. Part of my problem is, not very good eye sight. Remember, ct3, a winner never quits & a quitter never wins. I think you know this. MAYBE somebody else will read this & it will give him/her a little “boost.”

       
  23. J.M.

    February 18, 2014 at 2:09 PM

    SPARKY,
    I don’t need all those codes & Titles you bring up. I have the FOURTEENTH amendment to/of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. This is ALL I need. Sparky, you STILL DID NOT say who this “most high” IS. You ARE a high level READER, but YOU don’t even understand a simple question? I’m getting tired of playing the game of stupid with you. WHO is the most high, as you spell it in all lower case. Lower case means NO CAPITAL LETTERS. Now, WHO IS the, most high? Does this “most high” have a NAME? I see in my mind’s eye that you are giving me the middle finger but I don’t know if you are trying to tell me it’s your age or IQ. Who IS this, “most high?”

     
    • thomas russo

      February 18, 2014 at 3:09 PM

      MOOA, you say apears in most State and Federal Laws; well under what law, statute. ordinance, code does that apear? so site it, and site it means the exact legislative action that shows it along with what volume of the United States Code or State Revised Code it is under and I am sure you cannot nor anyone else can. So point out were the Title and section uses the term MOOA.
      The most high is referance to a universal creation and the point here is universal.

       
      • Adask

        February 18, 2014 at 3:18 PM

        If you’re talking to me, I’ve written over 40 articles on MOOA. You can find them listed under the category “Man or Other Animals”. Most of them include express references to the laws we’ve identified.

         
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 3:21 PM

        So you can not point it out, that’s all I wanted to know, you are a fake.

         
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 3:38 PM

        You have been challenged and you decline, then you are beaten, check mate.

         
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 3:43 PM

        I have no need to search for your scriblings you should know it off the top of your head so site the legislative act or stand down

         
  24. J.M.

    February 18, 2014 at 3:27 PM

    @ >”………..so site it, and site it means the exact legislative action that shows it …………….”

    Sparky, IF I “SITE” IT, WILL YOU BELIEVE IT? Sparky, you just too much, you are outta sight. I think you will understand what outta sight means because you said earlier that you liked to GET DOWN. How low can you go? Get down faw meh. lemme C how lows U can gits. Do you still want the SITE? It is on this site. I ain lyin.

     
    • thomas russo

      February 18, 2014 at 3:40 PM

      FIre away, show the alleged law and I will show the definition of it according to that alleged law.

       
      • J.M.

        February 18, 2014 at 5:58 PM

        @ > You have been challenged and you decline, then you are beaten, check mate.

        You like to play Chess with yourself too .And you Check Mate yourself. I think I could get you in a fool’s mate. I’m not saying you are a fool, but there is a term in Chess called a “Fool’s Mate.” I think it’s about 4 moves. It’s been so long ago & far away., I don’t remember for sure. No friend, you have been checkmated AND EXPOSED. I have a Wonderful Commander and Chief on this, HIS blog. I have a Wonderful Commander and Chief in Heaven too. WOW !!! The BEST friends anyone could hope to have. It’s almost too good to be true, I do sometimes wonder if it’s true because it’s almost too good to be true.

         
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 6:18 PM

        your a fake and you have a commander and cheif, and that makes you a slave along with not having any such legislative act to show the alleged MOOA to top this off you seem to fit the discription of a psychopath and if you do not know what that is look up the definition. Bye, bye and that meand adue which means good day which means hit the road, your so negative as well as your alleged assumptions and presumptions of nothing of fact.
        There is no need for you to comment the game is over you can not produce anything of substance to the MOOA B.S. you expose. Do not even bother you exposed yourself and MOOA illusion

         
      • J.M.

        February 18, 2014 at 7:23 PM

        thomas russo, I honestly laugh as hard at your comments as I did on the GENIUS De grasse video explaining who Fred is. The problem IS they know FRED is there, but they don’t know who Fred is. Fred is aka the long standing unsolved problem. Check it out, before you check out from here.

         
    • thomas russo

      February 18, 2014 at 3:46 PM

      Site the legislative act, you should know it so site it I have no need to ponder through drible at this point.

       
      • J.M.

        February 18, 2014 at 4:01 PM

        @ > I have no need to search for your scriblings

        It’s plain to me, that you,Sparky, aka tom boy tommy, would not understand or even read scriblins. I give you an A in that. So it will be useless to present them to you, SPARKY. U jus ant brite enuff to unnuhstain umm.

         
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 4:24 PM

        I was correct you have no idea what you are addressing, you are not what you appear to be to yourself or others, you have not facts just illusions. There is no such thing as MOOA in and legislative act, you have no idea what you are addressing and deceiving others and been had at your own game.

         
      • J.M.

        February 18, 2014 at 6:35 PM

        @ > “I was correct you have no idea what you are addressing, you are not what you appear to be to yourself or others, you have not facts just illusions. There is no such thing as MOOA in and legislative act, you have no idea what you are addressing and deceiving others and been had at your own game.”

        Re: MOOA < HEE HAW Heeeeeee HAW Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Hawwwwwwww !!!! Man U IS Soooo SHARP. Unbelievable. KEEP READING You say you are VERY WELL READ. Actually, I feel sorry for you, I really do. You have my sympathy, unless you were just trying to be funny.. I ain't smart enough to figger out if you were/are or not. BUT, Nobody can be that DENSE. Not even me.

        Apparently you get a kick out of reading your own messages to yourself. It apparently galls you that you have not received any messages from others saying he/she wants to be one of your followers. Another thing you are missing IS, they want followers too. It's highly competitive.You're like some others, Mladen, comes to mind, who do get me to nibblin, but this is because I want to so much to believe you as well as the rest are children of "God." When you had me nibblin, I tried to let you know that at least the bait tasted good. I never think of it as bait until I, by the grace of my God, He lets me see that it is. BUT I will always give the benefit of the doubt UNTIL I KNOW better.Otherwise if somebody "new" starts out good, that in itself would make me suspicious & I cannot think that way. Probably due to no wisdom, or not enough wisdom. I think I am right tho, when I say, think you, thomas russo, have had enough. You will be insulting your OWN intelligence by commenting anymore on THIS Blog. piece,………. Yes I spelled it right. I know what Chess peaces are too.

         
      • thomas russo

        February 18, 2014 at 6:50 PM

        You prove my point in the last reply you are a psychopath for the truth came out in your reply.

         
      • Adask

        February 18, 2014 at 8:04 PM

        Dear Mr. Russo,

        Thanks ever so for all of your informative and insightful comments. But you do have one little flaw that I cannot easily overlook. You apparently believe that you can come into my house (this blog is mine) and insult me, and will be welcome to return. That’s a mistake.

        I make this blog available to anyone who wants to visit without cost to them or profit to myself. That “openness” is a kind of hospitality. I don’t mind if people disagree with me. I’ll even put with people who seem stupid or even obstinate. But I can’t think of a single reason why I should be expected to endure insults from people who couldn’t write their own blog, but think it’s OK to hang out on mine.

        Therefore, Mr. Russo, given that you’ve insulted me by calling me a “fake,” you are now “free” to “inhabit” someone else’s blog.

        But you’re banned here.

        Bye-bye.

         
      • J.M.

        February 24, 2014 at 10:11 PM

        @ > Bye, bye and that meand adue which means good day which means hit the road,…………….”

        which also means, it over rover. (<Cut & pasted this, it over rover, from a prior comment of yourn. Hope you don't mind.

         
  25. J.M.

    February 18, 2014 at 3:49 PM

    @ > you are a fake.

    We don’t get anywhere by name calling, but you, SPARKY, are phonier than a 3 “dollar” federal reserve note. You read a lot based on your prior comments, but you don’t have time to read or do research on this blog. Go over to the right side of your monitor & do a little scrollin. I hope you know what scrollin means. Heck, all I know about a computer is how to turn one off & on. I know how to scroll but I don’t know enough to know how to tell you to do it but you can probably READ up on it. If you care enough to check out the MOOA threads. Let’s see if you are humble enough to apologize to whoever you called or think is a fake. I sure would if I was the one who said that.

     
    • thomas russo

      February 18, 2014 at 4:19 PM

      I am not checking out anything on your blog, you should know it off the top of your head if you wrote the crap so show your cards you have been called a fake or shut your trap so at this point you are in check, and you have no cards in your hand and no were to move so play your hand I do not need to go through drible to find something that does not exist when you should know it and have it in hand to play, so either place it down or get out of the game.

       
      • J.M.

        February 18, 2014 at 7:05 PM

        @ I am not checking out anything on your blog

        This is not my blog, Hoss. This is the blog of Alfred Adask. It is called the, Alfred Adask Law, Blog. Keep reading. Do you want somebody to set you in your high chair & tie a bib around your neck & read to you? When you said you are “very well read” didn’t you really mean to say you have had many things read to you? This would account for your repeated misspellings, in EVERY MESSAGE. Read some more. You are the proof of what a high level reader IS and my definition of IS means, what you ARE.. Jetlag came up with that term. He, Jetlag, said, he was a high level reader. You, thomas russo are a high level been read to er. < Read as used here is pronounced, red, like in the color of. & above, pronounced reed. Are you reading me? Since you are not going to check out ANYTHING on this blog, why don't you just CHECK OUT. PERIOD Like when you check out of a Motel, or, Hotel.

         
      • J.M.

        February 18, 2014 at 8:05 PM

        Sparky, aka thomas russo
        @ > you are in check, and you have no cards in your hand

        What are we playing here, CHESS or POKER or a mixture of both? Look, you need to give me at least a little insight on what I am up against. Let’s make it a level playing field. Is that unfair? I don’t think it is fair of you, being the KING KONG that you are, attacking me, a lil olLamb, BUT I’ll fight you ANYWAY & give it all I got or have. You should be ashamed of yourself picking on lil ol me. But apparently you have no shame. It’s odd that You are another KING KONG but all you are doing, accomplishing, is making me laugh heartily. When are you going to devour me? Is this why you are so frustrated, in that you just can’t seem to do it ? I think it’s the “Shield” I have standing in front of me, that is the problem & has been a “long standing problem” for you & your “kind” aka ILK for a long time.You cannot get through, penetrate,etc. this BIG problem. Soon your rantings & ravings will drain you of ALL your strength & energy. You will destroy yourself. You are self destructive, But you know what? You don’t have to be. Come down from your Ivory Tower & ask your LIFE GIVER to create within you a clean & humble heart. Ask Your LIFE GIVER to open your eyes, & quit reading so much. I think this is what the problem overall is. You do not have to go on what other scholars say. You have a Life Giver that will make you aware of what is important to understand. It’s truly simple & easy to understand. Have you ever considered that 99% of all man made knowledge is just that & nothing more? I’m strictly speaking of “Worldly Knowledge.” Calm down & try to be a good little boy.

         
    • EDOMS THORN

      February 18, 2014 at 5:10 PM

      Hello!

      Well they have finally seceded in destroying my computer. I have
      been wrestling with some bad virus’ and they got one past me. I am not
      sure how long I will be in acquiring a new computer. I am in town at the
      Library. My computer restarts at will, or locks up. Even in ‘safe mode’.

      I had posted to a troll and told him that “I was declaring war on
      Christian Identity”.”AND THE BIG DIFFERENCE” Just another reason to be attacked I remembered that he started his little nothing C.I.
      site the same time as mine and his IP address is there where wor dp ress
      is located.

      If you are interested in the conversation it is
      http://www.melgibstein.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/miss-congeniality/‎
      That is not where the virus came from. It is safe.

      Christian Identity is or has become hijacked by the FBI ADL

       
      • Russell Arms

        June 29, 2015 at 4:47 AM

        eDuMs,
        @ Well they have finally seceded in destroying my computer.
        EDumS, you were warned to cut the crap but you just laughed out loud. You STILL did not get the message & NOW you are seceded but not voluntarily. :-) D D D D D

         
  26. J.M.

    February 18, 2014 at 8:34 PM

    @ > Dear Mr. Russo

    @ >Thanks ever so for all of your informative and insightful comments.

    Don’t see how this or any other blog could possibly exist or go on without it, i.e., those “informative & insightful” comments, but it seems like we now have no choice. I think we may be able to overcome this sorely needed loss. Fact is, I KNOW we can. It won’t be easy that’s for certain, but we can trust & try.

     
    • J.M.

      February 19, 2014 at 12:40 AM

      Wow, I’m saying everything backwards lately, I meant to say, We can TRY & TRUST. By this, I mean, We can overcome this tragic loss of all of the “informative & insightful” comments of/from Mr. Russo, if we TRY & TRY with everything within us AND TRUST that we will be divinely guided to survive without the “informative & insightful” comments from Mr. Russo. This probably is still not clear as to what I am trying to say but it’s the best I can do. It doesn’t matter what I think or say anyway. BUT, I am pulling for you. < You means everybody. Readers & posters on this Blog.

       
  27. J.M.

    February 24, 2014 at 7:34 AM

    Mr. Russo said,
    @ >Man is seperate from the beast not part of mankind,……”

    Give Martens/Jetlag credit for this much.

    I don’t think Martens/Jetlag, has ever said that the man/animal, as HE/SHE (< ?) calls IT/them, animals, are not the leader of the pack. HE/SHE DOES put the man/animal in charge of ALL other animals. Even wolf packs have a leader as all animal packs do. Martens/Jetlag DO say that the man ANIMAL IS the leader of the pack of ALL other animals, not just man animals but ALL other "kinds" of animals. It's apparently hard for some to see that saying something like they do is spitting in the face of the Creator God because Adam was a special creation. No other creation of God was created in the image of God, per the Holy Bible. So, Martens/Jetlag IS trying his/her best to say we are animals, & no longer in the image of God. There IS a physical image & a spiritual image of God. Jesus Christ is the only one that has fulfilled BOTH images. He, Jesus, IS the FIRST BORN of "other" brethren to be born later via the first resurrection. Mankind, today, is only in the physical image of God. Overall, the highest creation of God, has most certainly degenerated into a wretch & even God himself said it repented him at his heart that he had created man because of man choosing to do evil. Looking like something & being like something is something else, something entirely different. Nobody seems to care about the character building issue. It is part of the overcoming our "human nature" downward pull. I am not a "human being" BUT I most certainly do have, "human nature." I must overcome it. God could have created in us, perfect character. BUT, he does not want robots. Ain't hard to understand IF God has called you to understand. BUT Satan & his disciples don't want you or me or anyone to understand. God gives instructions, then he tests us by allowing Satan to try & convince us that God didn't really mean what he said. Most people agree with Satan. We have the same Adam & Eve "test" going on today, as when it first originated. We are to build CHARACTER, OR ELSE We either will or we will not.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s