RSS

MOOA Fights the Phantom “Was”

25 Feb

The Phantom "Was" [courtesy Google Images]

The Phantom “Was”
[courtesy Google Images]

As many of you know, back in A.D. 2006, I became the last of seven defendants to be prosecuted in a civil suit by the Attorney General of Texas.  Each defendant was threatened with fines of $25,000 per day ($9 million per year). The case started in A.D. 2001 and continued to be actively prosecuted until A.D. 2007 when, despite having invested six years and nearly $500,000 in pre-trial investigations and pre-trial hearings, the prosecution simply stopped.  We never received an explanation as to why the prosecution stopped—it just did.

I believe and have argued that the Attorney General dropped the case because of the Freedom of Religion defense that I (with the grace of God) presented.  That defense was based on the following facts:

1) Genesis 1:26-28 declares man to be made in the image of God and given dominion over the animals (which were not made in God’s image);

2) no Christian or Jew who based his faith in part on Genesis 1:26-28 could be charged under laws that presumed people to be “animals” without violating his Freedom of Religion; and

3) the drug and medical device laws under which I and the other six defendants were charged presumed us all to be “animals”.

In essence, you can’t define me as an animal without violating a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths.  If you try to do so, I have a freedom of religion defense to stop you.

As I’ve described elsewhere, I believe this Man Or Other Animals (MOOA) defense is so politically explosive, that the government had no choice but to drop the case.

In fact, I can’t prove that my MOOA defense was as explosive as I believe.  I can’t prove why the Attorney General dropped the case.  The Attorney General never offered an explanation.  They just dropped the case.  I infer that the AG dropped the case because of my MOOA defense and I’ve argued that point off and on for the past eight years.

Recently, a couple of the readers on this blog have argued persistently that my MOOA defense is fundamentally flawed and wrong.  Foremost among these critics is someone who goes by the name of “Jetlag”.  He’s argued that while man was made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28, that status was lost when Adam and Eve committed the original sin, and remains lost to this day.  Jetlag bases his conclusions primarily on his reading of Genesis 9:6 which he claims that use of the word “was” (past tense) in relation to the “man made in God’s image” status proves that while man “was” (past tense) made in God’s image, that status is “past tense” and no longer available to man.

If Jetlag is right, my freedom of religion/MOOA defense was fundamentally flawed since man is no longer deemed by God to be made in His image and is therefore reduced to the status of a “beast” or “animal”.  Thus, although the Texas Attorney General did drop the case against us in A.D. 2007, he shouldn’t have done so since my defense was flawed.  If Jetlag is right, and if the AG had continued to prosecute the case, I might be in debt to the State of Texas for something like $20 million.

As you can see, I have a vested interest in denying Jetlag’s argument.

What follow are:

1)      Excerpts from one of Jetlag’s email dated “February 20, 2014 at 5:59 PM” wherein Jetlag (who describes himself as one of several Bible “students who aren’t deceived by erroneous arguments”) attempts to explain the fallacies in my MOOA defense and argument; and,

2)      My “voluminous” replies and defense against to Jetlag’s reading of the Bible.

Jetlag begins (his comments are indented and in quotes; my responses are not):

“@Adask “You have commented in volume, as usual,”

Yes, I tend to be long-winded and verbose.  (And if you think my last comment was overly “voluminous,” wait’ll you see this one.)

I wish I could write more concisely.  I sometimes pray to be able to write more concisely.  But that prayer has, so far, been unanswered.

But there’s something to be said for writing long articles and extensive comments:  the more I write, the more I learn.  In the end, I don’t write merely to “teach” others.  I also and primarily write to “teach” myself.  Writing causes me to pause, to think and to perceive things that I might’ve missed if I’d written more concisely.  I like to learn and since writing is the basis for most of my education, I like to writ . . . a lot.

More, when I write in adversity against something I believe to be intrinsically dead, I write somewhat like an undertaker.  I try to build the coffin very carefully, place the dead thing in that coffin, and then fasten the lid with a multitude of nails.  If the thing I thereby “bury” wishes to escape coffin I’ve created, it better be very effing powerful to escape the verbal coffin I’ve crafted.  Insofar as I bury something, I hope to see that it stays buried.

Nothing personal.  That’s just me.  I tend to overdo.  But in that tendency I’ve sharpened my ability to craft a pretty good coffin.  I won’t say that my coffins are impossible to escape, but the internee had better be a modern Houdini to do so.

Jetlag continues:

 

“but the only parts of interest to me are those that address the Biblical basis of your argument. As far as I’m concerned, you can have whatever “religious” or “political” opinions you fancy. My comments on this topic are, at present, only those of a student of the Bible.”

Good to know.  So, you (the magnificent “student of the Bible”) are going to let me have my own opinions on religion and politics?  Well, golly, thanks a lot, your highness! (Wait’ll I tell mom!)

But, if you’ll only consider those parts of my comments that are of interest to you, isn’t that kinda egotistical?

While I recognize your right to respond only to whichever parts of my comments you choose, couldn’t your blanket rejection of my “religious or political opinions” also be a means by which you could control the debate so as to simply ignore some of my stronger arguments and evidence?  Should we believe that you’re so smart that you can unilaterally reject my “religious and political opinions”?  Or should we believe that you’re you so weak that you’re afraid to address them?

If you’re going to separate the Bible from “religious” and “political” opinions that I (and perhaps others) advance, isn’t that a little short-sighted?  I mean, if we all separated the Bible from “religion” and “politics,” what relevance would the Bible have to today’s life?  We might argue forever about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and never once actually dance the Boogaloo.

•  Being a “student [extraordinaire?] of the Bible,” you’d probably know better than me, but didn’t the Messiah say something about “by their fruits ye shall know them”?

I believe he did, and I understand that statement to mean that when you’re faced with a difficult choice as to what to believe about a man (is he good or bad?) and there seems to be roughly equal evidence both for and against, the solution is to judge the man, not by what he says, but by what he’s done (his conduct, and the consequences of that conduct, his “fruits).  Thus, it seems “biblical” (at least to me) that my religious and political opinions be considered as evidence of whether your argument that man is no longer “made in God’s image” is right or wrong.

I.e., your “biblical arguments” do not exist in an intellectual vacuum as a kind of mathematical abstraction.  If you’re argument (that we are all “beasts”) is correct, your argument is conducive to abortion, serial killing, mass murder, genocide and even nuclear war.  If we’re all just animals, why not kill anyone who gets in our way.  The “fruits” of your argument is death.

On the other hand, my argument (that mankind is made in God’s image and therefore not “beasts” and not subject to being lawfully slaughtered like animals) is opposed to abortion, serial killing, mass murder, genocide and nuclear war.  The “fruits” of my argument are life.  However, evidence of that “life” will only be found in an examination of current “religious” and “political” realities.

So it seem surprising to me, and even a little unfair, that you’d seemingly refuse to consider my religious and political “opinions” wherein we might find evidence of the “fruits” of your and my conflicting beliefs.

Jetlag starts this next excerpt by quoting me:

 

“@Adask > ‘When your various “right arguments properly presented as Biblical” refute the idea that man is made in God’s image, then you also appear to refute the idea at Genesis 9:6 (immediately after the Great Flood) that the reason you can’t shed man’s blood (including murder) is that man is made in God’s image.’

Jetlag responds to my previous quote as follows:

“You [Adask] still don’t appear to have read Genesis 9:6, despite the fact that your misrepresentation of this verse has been pointed out multiple times.

“This verse does not say man “is” created in God’s image. It says man “was” created (or the grammatical equivalent) in God’s image.”

“The fact that man WAS created in God’s image is not in dispute here.”

 It may be that I haven’t read whichever version of the Bible Jetlag relies on, but I have read the King James and the New King James versions which both report Genesis 9:6 as:

 

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

Oddly, neither my King James and New King James version of Genesis 9:6 includes the word “was” which Jetlag has previously and repeatedly quoted as being present in that verse.

Hmph.  It is a puzzlement.  Could it be that the word “was” is present in some other version of the Bible but not the KJV?  Could it be that Jetlag’s argument (that man “was” once made in God’s image, but is no longer) is based on some alternative version of the Bible?

If so, would you mind telling us what’s the preferred version of Bible for you and your self-described “students of the Bible who are not persuaded by wrong arguments erroneously presented as Biblical”?  Which version of Bible do you regard as more authoritative than the King James Version?  Do tell.  Because it appears from reading the KJV, that the word “was” is a phantom—it does not actually exist in Genesis 9:6.

Therefore, is it possible that while you accuse me of repeatedly “misrepresenting” the meaning of Genesis 9:6 (and thereby impugn my motives and my character), the real problem has been that you have mis-read Genesis 9:6 and repeatedly misquoted the presence of the phantom word “was”—even though it wasn’t there?

Is that what we’ve been arguing about for the past week—your failure to properly read and honestly quote Genesis 9:6?    If so, was your allegation that the word “was” was present done by mistake or by intent?  Are you merely incompetent, or are you malicious?

Oh, wait–again!   In your most recent response, you wrote,

 

“This verse does not say man “is” created in God’s image. It says man “was” created (or the grammatical equivalent) in God’s image.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that although you’re still sticking to the use of “was” in quotes, you’re now qualifying that quote with “or the grammatical equivalent”.   Does that additional, qualifying phrase imply that you’ve recently re-read Genesis 9:6 and discovered that the word “was” (which appears to be the cornerstone for your argument that man is no longer made in God’s image) is not expressly present?

If so, does this mean that, rather than admit you’ve screwed up big time and wasted a lot of other people’s time with your silly-ass argument, your ego has prompted you to try to bluff your way out of this argument by now implicitly claiming that (while Genesis 9:6 doesn’t actually contain the word “was”) it nevertheless includes the “grammatical equivalent” of “was”?

Is that what you’re trying to say, Jetlag?

And I want to emphasize that my comments surrounding this “grammatical equivalent” issue are not my “religious” or “political” opinions. These comments are about you, in general, and your ego in particular.

I want to know, Bible student, if your version of the Bible actually includes the word “was” in Genesis 9:6.  If not, inquiring minds want to know if you have balls enough to admit that you’ve screwed up in the fundamental premise of your argument against MOOA.  Inquiring minds want to know if your ego will drive you to deny, deny, deny, that your argument was ever flawed.  Inquiring minds want to know if you have any substance or if you’re just a pile of superficial style.

•  Before you answer, and given your fondness and aptitude for “grammatical equivalence,” let’s read Genesis 9:6 one more time, and I’ll give you my “grammatical equivalence” for its meaning:

 

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

I think it’s apparent that the the word “for” was used in the sense of “because”.  If so, God implicitly said in Genesis 9:6 that:

 

1)      At least at some time in the history of the world, anyone who assaulted or killed another man, could lawfully suffer a similar injury or death by the hands of other men as a punishment; and,

2)      The reason that a man could be punished for having shed another man’s blood was that man was made in God’s image.  It is an offense against God to shed the blood of a man made in God’s image without cause.

Jetlag argues that while mankind “wasonce made in God’s image, that image has been lost and is no longer present to this day.  Jetlag originally based his argument on the presence of the phantom word “was” in Genesis 9:6 (which isn’t actually present in the King James Version).  Jetlag argued that the word “was” was past tense and therefore Genesis 9:6 only applied at some previous time, before Adam committed the Original Sin—but not 1,600 years later at the time of Noah and Genesis 9:6 and certainly not not today.

But, given Jetlag’s fascination with things “grammatical” and reliance on the past tense found in the (missing) word “was,”  I’m surprised that he missed the presence of the word “shall” (future tense) in Genesis 9:6 and its future implications.

Let’s read Genesis 9:6 again:

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

Thus, my “grammatical equivalent” to Genesis 9:6 is “Whoever sheddeth the blood of a man made in God’s image in the future, shall (in the future) also suffer a similar punishment.”  My “grammatical equivalent” of Genesis 9:6 indicates that, at least from the time of Noah’s exit from the Ark and onward to today, man may not be lawfully killed because all men are still (or have again become) “made in God’s image”.

If my reading is correct, I’m still entitled to claim to be made in God’s image.  More, I’m entitled to advance a valid freedom of religion claim that I’m not subject to laws that apply only to “animals”.

If my reading of the future application of Genesis 9:6 is correct, Jetlag’s “past tense” argument against MOOA is false.

But Jetlag remains undeterred.  He quotes me on the 6th Commandment in the KJV (“Thou shalt not kill”) and then explains the reason for that Commandment:

“@Adask > “If it’s no longer true that we’re made in God’s image, then what’s the basis for the biblical commandment against killing?”

“The Biblical basis against murder is that God has command against it. Also, God and man have certain covenantal and other relationships between them, including the God-given right to life.”

Uh-huhhh . . . vewy intewesting.

Jetlag, in your first sentence, you appear to say that there’s no actual “reason” for “Thou shalt not kill”—it’s “jus’ cuz” God says so, right?

In other words, God just arbitrarily declared “Thou shalt not kill,” and if He has a reason for that Commandment, He didn’t bother to explain it.  (Maybe He flipped a coin—whaddaya think?  Heads; thou shalt kill?  Tails, thou shalt not kill?)

And even if He has a reason and no one knows what it is, you (oh, Bible student extraordinaire; “B.S.E.”) understand for sure that it’s absolutely, positively not because man is made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28 and 9:6.  And you know this for sure because Genesis 9:6 includes the word “was”—or, if not, Genesis 9:6 nevertheless includes the “grammatical equivalent” of “was”.

My question to you is this:  Is it a rule of construction in the Bible that any use of the word “was” (or the “grammatical equivalent” thereof) is sufficient to render a sentence or verse using “was” (or the “grammatical equivalent,” of course) as no longer authoritative?  Do you understand what I’m asking?  Does “was” (or its “grammatical equivalent”) always condemn a verse onto the ash heap of history—or does “was” (even when it’s a phantom and not actually present) only negate the meaning of Genesis 9:6?

You may think I’m just straining at gnats.  However, my questions about the proper use of the word “was” are important because, according to a search on one of my computerized Bible programs, the word “was” actually appears a total of 4,531 times in 3,638 Bible verses. (God only knows how many verses only include the phantom “was” but do include the “grammatical equivalent” thereof.).  If all those Bible verses that actually include “was” have been thereby effectively nullified, that’ll reduce the effective size of the Bible quite a lot, y’ know?

See, according to one source, there are over 54,000 verses in the Bible.  So if 3,638 Bible verses are nullified by the actual use of the word “was” and some unknown number of other verses are nullified by the “grammatical equivalent” of “was,” then it could be that 10% of the modern Bible verses are mere historical curiosities and no longer of any force or effect.  You can see why I’m so concerned about the Bible’s rules of construction for use of the word “was”.  All this time I’ve been reading the Bible, and it may be that 10% (maybe more!) is of no force or effect.  So I gotta have an answer from a Bible Student Extraordinaire, like you, Jetlag.

Lemme give you an example of another Bible verse that actually uses the word “was”:

Genesis 1:3 reads, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”

So, if the Bible’s rules of construction for use of the word “was” are the same for all such uses, then I presume that you and your fellow B.S.E.s understand that while there was light, back at the time of Creation—today, because Genesis 1:3 uses the word “was” but not “is”, there “is” no light today, right?

Therefore, just as use of the phantom word “was” (or its “grammatical equivalent”) in Genesis 9:6 proves that man is no longer made in God’s image, I presume that use of the word “was” in Genesis 1:3 also proves that there is no longer any “light”—right?

If so, I’m confused because (I know you’ll think me odd) I actually believe I still see “light”.  But, if I understand you correctly, oh grand-high B.S.E., there is no light because the Bible said “was” in Genesis 1:3, and therefore my notions of “light” are all in my mind—a kind of delusion, right?

So, if you could help me to “see” that there really isn’t any light at this time, then maybe I could also learn to walk around in the eternal darkness like you and your fellows B.S.E.s—see?

•  Of course, if there is light, even today, how do you, Jetlag, explain that use of the word “was” in Genesis 1:3 does not prove the nonexistence of light today, while use of the phantom word “was” (or its “grammatical equivalent”) in Genesis 9:6 does prove the current non-existence of “men made in God’s image”?

I look forward to your explanation of that apparent contradiction.  It should be illuminating.

However, I don’t expect an explanation because I don’t think you can explain or even try to explain without digging the hole you’re in even deeper.

And, if this hole you’re digging is not growing deeper, it may still be growing wider.

I.e., when you wrote,

“The Biblical basis against murder is that God has command against it. Also, God and man have certain covenantal and other relationships between them, including the God-given right to life,”

your first sentence seems to have argued that “Thou shalt not kill” was purely an arbitrary command by God which no one can or needs to understand.  God said it.  No further explanation is necessary.  Salute and execute.

But your very next sentence seems to say “No! Wait!  ‘Thou shalt not kill” is not merely an arbitrary command, but is also based on “certain covenantal and other relationships” (I just love your use of the word “covenantal”; it’s so . . . so . . . sophisticated) between God and man.

Not being a B.S.E., I lack the intellect and education sufficient to understand how those two sentences aren’t contradictory.  It seems to me that the 6th Commandment either is arbitrary or it is not.  If that command is arbitrary, there shouldn’t also be a “covenantal relationship” to explain, justify or even authorize “Thou shalt not kill”.  If God ordered, “Thou shalt not kill” that order should be supreme and render any additional need for “covenantal relationships” moot.

On the other hand, if the 6th Commandment is based on a “covenantal relationship” between man and God, then it appears that “Thou shalt not kill” is based on reason that God presented in his “covenants” and which man can understand.

If my simplistic reasoning is valid, your two consecutive sentences contradict each other and therefore at least one of them must be false.

But how could that be possible?!!

After all, both sentences were written by you, Jetlag, the Bible Student Extraordinaire (B.S.E.), and we all know that a Bible Student of your Extraordinary capacity could not possibly have made a mistake.  But if you did make a mistake, your character and integrity would quickly compel you to confess your error—just as you did with your idiotic argument that men are no longer “made in God’s image” because of the use of phantom word “was” (which isn’t actually even used in the KJV) in Genesis 9:6.

Ohh . . . wait . . . you haven’t yet admitted that error, have you?  Perhaps your character and integrity are not as great as I (and perhaps, you) have previously supposed.

In any case, Jetlag, being the Bible Student Extraordinaire, perhaps you’d be kind enough to list these “covenantal and other relationships” that create the authority and reason for “Thou shalt not kill”.  And, given that “Thou shalt not kill” was commanded shortly after the Hebrews exited from Egypt, these “covenantal relationships that you refer to must have been entered into some time before the Ten Commandments were issued.  That suggests that your “covenantal relationships” must be found in the early part of the book of Exodus or in the previous book of the Bible: Genesis (wherein we find Genesis 1:26-28 and 9:6).  I wish you Good hunting!

Also, you referenced our “God-given right to life”.  I understand that the “grammatical equivalent” to “God-given right to life” could be found in our “Declaration of Independence”.  However, not being a Bible Student Extraordinaire, I haven’t yet found passage anywhere in the Bible (especially that portion of the Bible that precedes the Ten Commandments) where the text refers to our “God-given right to life” (or the “grammatical equivalent” thereof).  Can you provide some citation to whichever verses you believe declare such right?

•  Next, Jetlag complains that my previous comparison of himself to Adolph Hitler is unfair.  See, I’d previously observed that the legal foundation for killing Jews in Nazi concentration camps during WWII was Hitler’s A.D. 1935 Nuremberg Laws that declared the Jews to be “untermenschen” (sub-humans or “animals”).  As Jews who were legally reduced to the status of animals, the Jews could be freely slaughtered no more moral or legal liability than would attach if you slaughtered a cow or a lamb.  Other Germans retained their status as men who were superior to animals and could not be freely slaughtered.

As I understand Jetlag’s argument:

1) God’s declaration at Genesis 1:26-28 that man is made in God’s image and given dominion over the other creatures (“animals”) which are not made in God’s image was terminated by original sin; and therefore

2) the prohibition on killing men because they’re made in God’s image (Genesis 9:6) is also terminated and of no force or effect today.

Jetlag’s argument is similar to Hitler’s A.D. 1935 Nuremberg Laws in that both allow some or all people to be considered as “animals” which are therefore suitable for being killed without legal or moral consequence.

As I’ve previously pointed out, the Messiah at one point advised that when it’s difficult to discern whether a man or idea was good, “by their fruits ye shall know them”.  The “fruits” (consequences) of my argument that men are still “made in God’s image” are longer life and less murder.

The fruits” (consequences) of Jetlag’s argument that men are no longer made in God’s image but are instead reduced to the status of “beasts” are shorter life, more murder, serial killing, mass murder, abortion, genocide and nuclear war.  Thus, Jetlag’s analysis of the meaning of the word “was” in Genesis 9:6 (or the “grammatical equivalent” thereof) seem to have a lot in common with Hitler’s philosophy.

Jetlag objects to that comparison by first quoting me, and then providing his response:

“@Adask > “Please share your enormous biblical wisdom (the same once advocated by Adolph Hitler) with me and rest of the readers of this blog.”

“So now you’re playing the Hitler card.  Like I said, this topic is not about your politics or religion (or the overlap of the two), as far as I’m concerned. As a student of the Bible, this is only about what scripture does and does not say.

There I go again:  “playing the Hitler card”.  How unfair of me.  You’d think I was darn Jew, always whining about Hitler.  I guess I should get over it, right?

Just because Jetlag’s interpretation of the Bible is conducive to the same sort of genocide perpetrated by Adoph Hitler, it’s unreasonable and unfair of me to point that out.

Jetlag apparently believes that he should be allowed to control what topics and subject will be considered on this blog.  Well, that’s a nice, egotistical theory, Jetlag, but it don’t fly here.

This is my blog and if the topics on this blog are going to be controlled by anyone, they’ll be controlled by me.  And no one, not even a B.S.E., is going to tell me what I can or can’t write about on this blog.

You, Jetlag, get to control the topics on your blog—but not on mine.  Which, incidentally, brings up another question:  Where is your blog, Jetlag?  I’ve published nearly 1,400 articles on this blog, so I assume that (smart as you are, B.S.E.) you may have published even more on your blog.  So, why don’t you tell us where we can find your blog and read all of the multitude of brilliant articles you’ve written?

•  In fact, your attempt to confine this “topic” to “only about what scripture does and does not say” seems self-serving and defensive.  I think you have brains enough to see that your interpretation of the significance of the word “was” in Genesis 9:6 is stupid.  That stupidity is particularly apparent given that: 1) the word “was” (on which you base your argument) doesn’t even appear in the King James Version of Genesis 9:6; and 2) the consequences of your interpretation of Genesis 9:6 include increased likelihood murder, mass killings, abortion and genocide.  If you’re right, we’re worshipping a god who encourages murder.

Given that the KJV of Genesis 9:6 doesn’t include the word “was”—but does include the word “shall”—your wish to restrict the topic to “only about what scripture does and does not say” seems a little hypocritical.  I mean, my KJV of Genesis 9:6 does not include or “say” the word “was,” so how is it, oh Brilliant Bible Student, that you’re basing your argument on a phantom word that the KJV Bible does not “say” at Genesis 9:6?

•  One other point about Hitler’s law declaring the Jews to be “untermenschen”:  Why was such law necessary?  Why didn’t the Nazis simply round up the Jews and kill them?

If it were true (as Jetlag insists) that all men are still beasts/animals under God’s law, why didn’t Hitler know and understand that principle?  The fact that Hitler felt obligated to pass a law that declared the Jews to be animals before he initiated the “final solution” implies that Hitler and the German people did not regard all men as “beasts”.  If they had, no special law would’ve been necessary to authorize the killing of Jews.

Why the Nazis believed that men were different from animals is not known to me.  Exactly why the Nazis believed that declaring Jews to be animals would warrant the Jews deaths is not known to me.  But it’s certainly possible and virtually certain that the Nazis understood that Genesis 9:6 and the 6th Commandment protected all men from arbitrary murder—and therefore passed a law that stripped the Jews of their status as “men”.  I the status of untermenschen/animals, the Jews (including even children) could be arbitrarily and legally exterminated.

Thus, we see implicit evidence that even the Nazis’ acknowledged that man was not an animal and therefore could not be murdered without some sort of legal justification.

Jetlag goes Hitler one better by implicitly arguing that no such legal justification is required since all of us are already “beasts”.

•  Jetlag continued:

“If your interest in Christian scripture is genuine, you [Adask] might finally answer the following question. For clarity, I post it again, after answering your questions about the question:

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

“shall” = future tense

“If Paul and the Corinthians had to wait until after death to acquire the image of God, on what scriptural basis is it credible that Alfred Adask would not have to wait?”

“If [Adask’s] interest in Christian scripture is genuine”?  Again, you impugn my motives, character, etc.  That’s why I’m going to drive this “topic” into the ground.  You’re a smug, arrogant pseudo-intellectual, Jetlag.  You use language to bamboozle rather than commune.  You’ve less interested in finding truth than in winning (even false) arguments.  You remind me of Psalm 2:1-4 which reads,

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.  He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.”

You also make me “laugh,” Jetlag, and I regard you with “derision”.   You are a dead thing, suitable for one of my “coffins”.

As for your questions that you’ve allegedly posted repeatedly, first, I don’t recall having seen that question before, but I don’t have time to read all of the comments so I may have missed it.  But here it is, posed again “for clarity”:

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

“shall” = future tense

“If Paul and the Corinthians had to wait until after death to acquire the image of God, on what scriptural basis is it credible that Alfred Adask would not have to wait?”

Well, before I can answer your question, we need even a little more “clarity” from you.  What evidence do you have (other than your own presumption?) that the phrases “image of the heavenly” and “image of God” are synonymous?

See, my computerized versions of the Bible include a Strong’s Concordance which defines the word “God” as used in the “image of God” at both Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 9:6 as:

“H430

אלהים

‘ĕlôhîym

el-o-heem’

“Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: – angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.”

But that same version of Strong’s defines the word “heavenly” in the phrase “image of the heavenly” in 1 Chronicles 15:49 as:

G2032

ἐπουράνιος

epouranios

ep-oo-ran’-ee-os

From G1909 and G3772; above the sky: – celestial, (in) heaven (-ly), high.

Do you see the problem, oh Bible Student Extraordinaire who seeks to restrict this topic to “only about what scripture does and does not say”?

Apparently you don’t want to be bound by your own rules.

As used in the verses at issue, “God” and “heavenly” are two different words.

The definition for “God” (in reference to the image of “God” in Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 9:6) doesn’t appear to be synonymous with the word “heavenly” (in “image of the heavenly” in 1 Chronicles 15:49). So, unless this is another instance of “grammatical equivalency,” how can your question make much sense?  How can I explain your seemingly nonsensical question?

Given that the two definitions appear different, why couldn’t I have the “image of God” in this life and later acquire the “image of the heavenly” in the next life?

(Incidentally, who gets to decide what the “grammatical equivalence” of a word, phrase or verse is?  You?)

More, “If your interest in Christian scripture is genuine, you, Jetlag, might . . . answer the following question”:  How is it that a Bible Student Extraordinaire like yourself has not only presumed, but even argued repeatedly (you claim to have asked the underlying question more than once) that the phrase “image of God” and “image of the heavenly,” are synonymous?

As you may know, I’m just a dumb construction worker.  But, even to an intellect as ordinary as mine, presuming the words “God” and “heavenly” to be synonymous when they are clearly not, seems like a big mistake for anyone whose “interest in Christian scripture is genuine”—especially, a Bible Student Extraordinaire like yourself.

How do you explain that screw-up, smart guy?

Again, I’m reminded of the references in Psalm 2:4 to laughter and derision.  I think I’m going to buy you a big red rubber nose, and maybe some floppy shoes, and you can wear them whenever you read the Bible and comment on this blog.  They might remind you of the need for a dash of humility even among B.S.E.s.

•  Jetlag persists (but few are more persistent than me):

“Also, how do you explain the following statements by Christ that he, specifically, was the image of God in his day?

“John 12:45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me.

“John 14:9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”

I don’t claim to know what the explanation is.  I don’t even claim to see why any explanation is required since, to my simple mind, the explanation seems fairly obvious:

 

1)      God made man in His image;

2)      The Messiah was sometimes referred to in the New Testament as the “Son of Man”;

3)      It’s reasonable to conclude that being the “Son of Man,” the Messiah was (like mankind) was made in the “image of God”.

4)      It’s also reasonable to suppose that since all men are made in God’s image, but virtually all men have different faces, that the Messiah, being the only begotten Son of God, might bear a more accurate “image of God” than you or I do.  You and I look like men but we don’t look like twins.  I look more like my earthly father and you may look more your earthly father.  If you could see the Messiah, you might also see a much stronger resemblance to his Father and to the “image of God”.

Undeterred by simple observation, truth or reason, Jetlag continues:

“You still don’t appear to have read Genesis 9:6, despite the fact that your misrepresentation of this verse has been pointed out multiple times.  This verse does not say man “is” created in God’s image. It says man “was” created (or the grammatical equivalent) in God’s image.  The fact that man WAS created in God’s image is not in dispute here.”

I find it hilarious to read that you (Jetlag) accuse me of not having properly read Genesis 9:6 and having thereby failed to see that the word “is” is missing, while you have clearly not read Genesis 9:6 since you’ve found the phantom word “was” and missed the expressly-present word “shall”.  And, the phantom word “was” is the foundation for your argument against the validity of MOOA.

You, Jetlag, are undeniably guilty of the very same “crime” that you’ve mistakenly charged against me:  failing to have read the Bible and then misrepresenting the meaning of the verse in question.

What irony, hmm?  The man who accused me of not having read Genesis 9:6 has, himself, apparently failed to read Genesis 9:6  Hoisted by his own petard, hmm?

Jetlag’s argument that man is no longer made in God’s image is based on claims that:

 

1) use of the phantom word “was” (past tense) (which isn’t really used in Genesis 9:6); and,

2) the absence of the word “is” from that verse; are,

3) absolute proof that

4) man is no longer made in God’s image;

5) man is still deemed a “beast” by God;

6) Government’s use of the phrase “man or other animals” in its definitions of “food,” “drug” and medical “devices” is harmless or at least beyond any freedom of religion objection; and,

7) my “Man Or Other Animals” (MOOA)/freedom-of-religion defense was irrational and of no force and effect and therefore inherently false.

But, in fact, in the KJV of Genesis 9:6:

 

1)      The phantom word “was” (past tense) does not appear and only might be implied;

2)      The word “is” (present tense) does not appear; but,

3)      The word “shall” (future tense) does absolutely, positively appear.

4)      The express word “shall” (future tense) trumps the absence of “is” (present tense) and would trump the meaning of the phantom word “was” (past tense) if “was” had actually been included in the KJV of Genesis 9:6. Therefore,

5)      Jetlag’s argument about the current application of MOOA has failed.

 Utterly.

Ridiculously.

Even comically.

His argument is based on the presence of a word that doesn’t appear in at least ten versions of the Bible.  If I were a Bible Student Extraordinaire and I made that sort of argument and persisted in doing so, I’d be red if that mistake were exposed.

I wonder if Jetlag has the capacity to blush.

 

•  Read it on more time, B.S.E.:

 

“Gen 9:6:    Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

Incidentally, “Sheddeth” appears to be future tense. (If they’d meant past tense, I think they’d have written “hath sheddeth”.)

But “shall” is undeniably future tense.  More, there’s no reason to suppose that “future” didn’t start for another 3,500 years into the future.  Therefore, from Genesis 9:6 onward: 1) men were made in God’s image; and therefore, 2) anyone who spilled man’s blood shall (future tense) also see his own blood spilled.

More, as it turns out, Jetlag’s original argument was primarily based on the premise that the word “was” (past tense) appeared in Genesis 9:6.   In fact, Jetlag’s premise is false.

The word “was” is not even present in the King James Version of Genesis 9:6.  In fact, my computer Bible study program has ten versions of the Bible (ASV, CEV, ESV, GNB, GW, KJV, KJVR, LITV, MKJV and RV) and not one of those ten presents a version of Genesis 9:6 that includes the use of the word “was”.   Nine of those ten versions include the word “shall” and the one remaining version uses the word “will”.

Jetlag’s argument against MOOA is false.  Not a little bit false, not arguably false, but absolutely false.

More, given that the word “was” (on which Jetlag based his argument) doesn’t even appear in ten versions of the Bible, Jetlag’s argument is not only false, but so blatantly and obviously false that it’s hard to know if Jetlag is merely incompetent, too egotistical to admit when he makes a mistake, or malicious insofar as he persists in asserting an argument based on a word that he should know isn’t actually present in Genesis 9:6.

Jetlag undoubtedly knows more than most about the “letter” of law in the Bible, but he appears to have little or no appreciation of the spirit of the Bible.

So far as I know, the God of the Bible is the God of truth.  Truth is a vital concern to our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.

Apparently, truth may not be a vital concern for Jetlag.

 
115 Comments

Posted by on February 25, 2014 in "Man or Other Animals", Bible, Lies

 

Tags: , , ,

115 responses to “MOOA Fights the Phantom “Was”

  1. gabep1g

    February 25, 2014 at 2:24 PM

    Jetlag is a government plant to muddle the truth. Ignore the bum.

     
    • Jethro!

      February 25, 2014 at 2:42 PM

      You have to wonder… “Ed Snowden’s latest leaked documents open the lid on what is perhaps the most vindictive and disgusting aspect of the government-corporate joint surveillance state seen yet…”

      http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

       
      • J.M.

        February 25, 2014 at 4:47 PM

        Tony,
        Per the link you provided about Edward Snowden. Am I understanding this correctly?

        @ >Government targets in this malicious operation appear to be bloggers, activists, journalists, social event organisers and anyone else deemed to be a ‘emerging leader’ or voice in the public sphere, or alternative media online.

        This obviously extends way beyond the practice of employing paid ‘trolls’ to pollute comment sections and redirect forum threads – which still exists under both government and corporate umbrellas.

        To pollute comment??? HOW??? Does this have anything to do with “SOME” of my messages not completely going through, posting completely?

        @ > redirect forum threads??? Tony will you be so kind as to give an example of what this means & how it is done? THANKS !!!! Inquiring minds want to know.

         
      • J.M.

        February 26, 2014 at 12:06 PM

        Jethro.
        I”m sorry !!!! WHY I asked Tony the things I did about the LINK YOU provided, I just don’t know. First, THANK YOU, Jethro, for providing the link about Ed Snowden. I really do feel BAD about giving another credit for something someone else did.I keep asking myself what made me do that? Anyway, Jethro, will you help me out here, & if you will, answer the questions, I asked Tony, re: the link you provided? it will be much appreciated.

         
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 3:34 PM

      gabep1g,

      @ > Jetlag is a government plant to muddle the truth. Ignore the bum.

      To your knowledge, gabep1g, can ANY government plant do something to prevent messages from posting completely? I really am dumb/stupid/illiterate, etc. when it comes to knowing anything about computers. BUT there is SOMETHING preventing SOME of my messages to post completely. It seems to me SOMEBODY would try to help me understand WHY.

       
      • Adask

        February 25, 2014 at 3:37 PM

        Whatever is happening with your messages, J.M., it’s not me. It’s something to do with WordPress or your computer or some such.

         
    • J.M.

      March 5, 2014 at 9:07 PM

      gabep1g

      @ > Jetlag is a government plant to muddle the truth. Ignore the bum.

      I don’t think so. I don’t think ANY government plant IS IS IS that intelligent. Not when it comes to the Bible. However, a great service WAS attempted for & in behalf of the gov-co to further ITS agenda. Ohhhh YES.

      And that’s the way it WAS WAS WAS WAS. I wonder how many, KNEW it WAS a spiritual BATTLE going on. Seems like MOST looked at it as only SHARING information, nothing more, nothing less. HORSE FEATHERS.

       
    • J.M.

      March 8, 2014 at 1:38 PM

      gabep1g

      Am hoping this message will post directly under yours so it will be UP FRONT in case there might be someone in the future who comes across this thread, will see at least another side of the coin of Martens/Jellag position.

      IMAGE of God, examples

      Man has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, like God.

      Man has the ability to reason, invent, imagine, be creative, and understand new concepts, like God.

      Man has the ability to love, like God.

      Man has self-control choice, and he is not simply driven by instinct, hunger, fear, etc. like mere animals.

      Man is able to make complex decisions, like God.

      God endowed man with intellectual ability which was and is far superior to that of ANY animal. < Understand, Martens/Jetlag, ET AL?

      Man is capable of logic.<A BIG Problem for "animals."

      Man only, of all God's creatures, has a spirit or God-consciousnes that is, a capacity for knowing God and holding spiritual communion with Him through prayer, praise, and worship.

      Need anymore examples??? I know you, Martens/jetlag disagree with all of the above examples but this is simply because YOU are incapable of using ANY LOGIC which is VERY understandable

       
  2. J.M.

    February 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM

    @ >More, when I write in adversity against something I believe to be intrinsically dead, I write somewhat like an undertaker.

    I think the “uppertaker” approves of what you write about.> February 20, 2014 at 3:02 PM “As far as I’m concerned, you can have whatever “religious” or “political” opinions you fancy.” < This what he, Jetlag is saying to Jesus Christ too. Jetlag, in the past, on other threads has SAID, but cleverly, in a way that is not easily detected that the Commandments ARE ABOLISHED. I KNEW THEN what his hidden agenda IS. Enuff said, for now.

     
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM

      Only part of message posted will try again

       
  3. J.M.

    February 25, 2014 at 2:34 PM

    Alfred, Truthfully, ONLY part of my message posted. I said Jetlag responded to your February 2o,2014 at 3:02 PM by saying what is posted above. Let’s see if it will go through this time

    February 20, 2014 at 3:02 PM < Your entire message. Absolutely astonmishing. IF this will not make Martens/Jetlag slither away, not anything else will, except YHWH. STILL Satan needs all the helpers & good right arms he can get & even tho Martens/Jetlag ARE two good right arms FOR HIM, Satan, BUT, once again, they have two right arms attached to two left hands hanging in each other's way but I guess they are better than no arms at all, I guess.

     
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 2:42 PM

      I also said this & I’m hoping this will go through this time. I said you,Alfred used illustrations to get points across the SAME as Jesus Christ used illustrations to get points across,e.g. Who & what is a “neighbor.” Jetlag refers to your response, as your religious & political beliefs. So the same applies to Jesus Christ too, apparently. < None of this posted, This should also say "something." AND I had MORE in my message that did not post. Will try to get it in later because IT IS important

       
    • Hon San

      February 26, 2014 at 4:57 PM

      The Japanese government claims that there is no dispute on the sovereignty of these islands, and that they belong to Japan when they first discovered these islands in 1884.

      However, there are many records that show that these islands have been part of China for more than 600 years since the Ming Dynasty, that Chinese fishermen on and off have been using these islands as temporary shelters, and many international maps (including Japanese maps) over the last few centuries have listed these islands as part of China.

      Based on analysis of official Japanese government documents (by both Chinese and Japanese scholars), Japan actually tried to secretly steal these islands from China in the late 1880s and early 1890s. When Japan defeated China after the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, these islands came under the control of Japan.

      When WWII ended, according to the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, and the 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the Diaoyu Islands should have been returned to China, just like Taiwan and other territories that Japan had stolen from China.

      It is important to note that the principal author of all these three documents was the USA.

       
    • J.M.

      February 27, 2014 at 11:19 PM

      Absolutely astonmishing
      wow, unbelievable. I meant Absolutely astonishing.

       
  4. Jethro!

    February 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM

    The New International Version of Gen. 9:6 reads:

    “Whoever sheds human blood,
    by humans shall their blood be shed;
    for in the image of God
    has God made mankind.”

    …in the image of God _has_ God made… This grammar implies that man’s creation in the image of God continues. Let’s try using the same language in a different context to test it:

    “for in the image of snowmen
    has mom made cookies”…

    …implies the cookies are still in the image of snowmen, not somehow ceased to be (and if they did, what did they become?)

    I am persuaded Al’s interpretation of Gen. 9:6 is correct hermeneutically, morally and grammatically.

     
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 3:11 PM

      Hi Jethro,

      I like the following translation better because it has more of the ring of truth in it.

      Genesis 9:6 >Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

      Also, I don’t think it’s Al’s “interpretation” .BUT, Why try to explain something when I KNOW something is happening to make SOME of my messages post incomplete & that which DOES post is not in chronological order. It looks like I said to Al, from what did post, this,> “As far as I’m concerned, you can have whatever “religious” or “political” opinions you fancy.” < Jet lag is the one who said this, not I. IF the part of my message that did not post would have posted, it would have been clear. as to what was said & FROM who said it. Confusion begets confusion. I don't think from what is happening is just a coincidence. Let's see if this goes through completely.

       
      • J.M.

        February 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM

        @ > February 25, 2014 at 3:11 PM Hi Jethro,
        @ >I like the following translation better because it has more of the ring of truth in it.

        Every word DID post in the above message, THIS TIME.

         
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 6:23 AM

      Jethro,
      @ >Seriously? Why don’t you “two” use your government Disruption Operation payment to rent a room so you can make out in private.

      Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Hawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww !!

      I told a Mr.Russo, a few days ago to get back in bed with the 2 animal men. That makes 3 animal hearts in a tangle doesn’t it. Thanks for the laugh Jethro. Thanks for your perception.

       
      • J.M.

        March 8, 2014 at 5:08 PM

        Jethro,

        @ >Seriously? Why don’t you “two” < Yeah right "TWO"

        One thing for sure the "two" are of the SAME source, ONE in LIKE MIND. Ain't no doubt about that. Well guess what? SAME HERE on the side. We have a source too. We are LIKE MINDED TOO. Difference IS, our source & your source are TWO different sources. LOL LOL LOL !!!! HE-HAW

         
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 8:34 PM

      Jethro,
      @ >“Well done, Jetlag.”

      @ >Seriously? Why don’t you “two” use your government Disruption Operation payment to rent a room so you can make out in private.

      Jethro,You’re A man after my own heart. I’ll never get enough of this one. Our heavenly Father & our elder brother LOVE to laugh too !!! This is another “image” we have of our Creator. OF COURSE it can become perverted just like anything else if we let it become so. Satan laughs too. He is so perverted he STILL thinks he will win the war, then he has doubts. So the way that he thinks he will win one way or the other is by destroying ALL mankind. AND, if it were not for OUR Father & Jesus Christ intervening, at “that time” & FOR a little flock’s sake, Satan WOULD succeed in destroying MANKIND. EVERYBODY. Every time I scroll down to see if there are any new comments, & I see yours above, I laugh. Thanks again. Don’t we have a wonderful Commander & Chief of this Blog !!! NO !! I’m not trying to “brown nose.” If so, I’m brown nosin you too, Jethro. & Skip Robinson, & others.I’m just telling the truth as I see it & understand it.

       
  5. Applessence

    February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

    Just a note of curiosity, perhaps overstating the obvious…..but didn’t god just make the first man (Adam and Eve, as it were), and man made all the rest of them through procreation? IF that was the case, since god’s deal was a one-time thing, WAS would be the correct term, even if it WAS in Genesis 9.6. I don’t know if it really matters who makes anything, if it is made to the original ‘specs’, it is STILL “in the image of god”, I would think, and certainly, if Adam and Eve were in the image of god, and that is ALL they had to work with, how could they produce ( or since then) anything OTHER than another man ‘in the image of god? Maybe jetlag is focusing on the wrong points of the Bible in the first place, eh? Trouble maker? Troll?

    Alfred, isn’t all that MOAA stuff in the “codes”, anyway, and only apply to “persons” (corporate entities by the code’s own definitions) who are “in this state” (US territories, District of Columbia, by the codes own definitions)? I am sure there are no “men” referred to in ANY of the codes, only “persons”, and I have yet to see MOAA referred to as a “person”….maybe jetlag works for the da? ; )

     
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 3:45 PM

      @ > Applessence
      @ >February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

      Thank God !!!! SOMEBODY with COMMON SENSE, Applessence. YES, kind after kind. Abel was called, what? No response necessary. THANK YOU!!! Applessence.

       
    • Adask

      February 25, 2014 at 8:44 PM

      Insofar as their codes refer to “man or other animals,” they include a kind of “man” in their codes, but he is the “animal-man” rather than the “man made in God’s image”. Thus, it’s not enough to claim to be “man” or even a “living man” since you can still be presumed to be an “animal”. If you want to claim to be a real “man,” you must claim to be a “man made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28”. Now, you’ve a claim that is so specific that it can’t be misconstrued by means of ambiguity.

       
      • J.M.

        February 26, 2014 at 5:34 PM

        Re: Photo of Phantom & the word, WAS.

        I guess it’s better to be known & remembered as a has been rather than a never was. What a relief

         
    • J.M.

      March 8, 2014 at 5:28 PM

      IF that was the case, since god’s deal was a one-time thing, WAS would be the correct term

      TRUE, It’s just that the way man WAS created IS the way it still IS, the ONLY difference being, the character building process. This is why Jetlag REFUSED to want to participate in WHY the tree WAS in the midst of the garden. He KNEW instantly what would happen because his SOURCE KNEW & said, Jetlag STAY AWAY from that issue. And if nobody else understands WHY that issue WAS not to be touched with a 20 foot pole I KNOW WHY, SO did JETLAG. Now this issue is for another place & another time. Actually it should be obvious as to WHY the tree of good & evil existed in the first place. There WAS a REASON for it. I know why. BUT it’s because my SOURCE told me. My source is REAL I did not get what I KNOW from my 6th grade education.

       
  6. Robert House

    February 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM

    Hey Adask

    Hope your ;re fine. One question do you have any way to contact ernie wayne ter telgte?

    Thanks

    Taxcat1040

    CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE–NOT A RELIANCE OPINION; NOT A MARKETED OPINION. THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE AND ITS CONTENTS AND ANY ATTACHMENTS WERE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY LEARN LAND LENDING INSTITUTE TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY ANYONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF (i) AVOIDING U.S. TAX PENALTIES, OR (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED OR STATED HEREIN. THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE AND ITS CONTENTS AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE NOT TREATED AS A MARKETED OPINION BECAUSE “(A) THE ADVICE WAS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY LEARN LAND LENDING INSTITUTE TO BE USED, AND IT CANNOT BE USED BY ANY TAXPAYER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON THE TAXPAYER; (B) THE ADVICE WAS WRITTEN TO SUPPORT THE PROMOTION OR MARKETING OF THE TRANSACTION(S) OR MATTER(S) ADDRESSED BY ANY WRITTEN ADVICE; AND (C) THE TAXPAYER SHOULD SEEK ADVICE BASED ON THE TAXPAYER’S PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES FROM AN INDEPENDENT TAX ADVISOR.” 31 C.F.R. SECTIONS 10.35(b)(4)(ii); 10.35(b)(5)(i); and (b)(5)(ii)(A), (B) AND (C).

    THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE (678) 584-5019 AND/OR RETURN E-MAIL.

    individual’s specific circumstances. We recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that this educational information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

    Robert Donel House Howell does not offer legal advice and is not licensed to do so.

    This private email message, and any attachment(s) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains privileged and/orconfidential information. To all public servants, including but not limited to Federal, State, or Local corporate government(s THANK YOU.

    TO UNSUBSCRIBE: If you are receiving this message in error or would prefer not to receive future e-mails from us, please, send a blank message to houseaa@charter.net with the Subject line as UNSUBSCRIBE.

     
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 4:19 PM

      To: Robert House,

      Hopefully the info below will be of help, a little bit, hopefully, e.g., William Wolf

      @ Feb 6, 2014 12:10 AM by Beth Saboe – Bozeman
      Montana group threatens to arrest judge
      BOZEMAN – A threat made against a Montana judge has some law enforcement officials on edge, but a member of the unorganized militia behind the threat said his group is not out for vigilante justice.

      “This is not about arresting a judge per se, this is about holding him and every law agency to the same standards that they hold you and I to. This isn’t about vengeance, this is about justice,” William Wolf said.

      Wolf is a friend of Ernie Tertelgte, a Manhattan resident who refers to himself “a natural living man” and who has gained Internet fame for confronting local judges.

       
    • Adask

      February 25, 2014 at 8:46 PM

      He sent some paperwork to me. It was lost in the shuffle. He was rearrested before I got back to him.

       
      • J.M.

        February 27, 2014 at 5:42 PM

        @Walter Cronkite?!! Who th’ heck is Walter Cronkite? Must’ve been before my time

        You know who he WAS/IS.lol. Some people called him, Walter Crankcase. I PERSONally believe he will be in the 2nd Resurrection. This resurrection is for those who lived & died who never knew their purpose in life like little children who died from disease brought on by transgressions of “God” laws, & many other types of people who will be taught about who’s who & what’s what & what it’s all about. I recall the reaction of Walter Cronkite trying to announce the death of President Kennedy, & the man,Walter, had a heart that was not seared. But Remember, I always stand to be corrected. By the way, Mladen, aka Mark, talked about the 1789 Constitution not mentioning “God.” What about the “date” & the “Lord” This “date” should say a lot Day of our Lord. Today, it is, February 27, 2014. 2014 from what? Same meaning as the date in the 1789 Constitution except for the difference in the time that has passed since then. ANYWAY, NOT ONE Word posted in my comment to Mladen even tho I saw, “posting comment” alert or whatever it’s called. Done in the day of our Lord 1787< don't know for sure if it WAS 1787 but this still does not diminish the meaning.

         
      • J.M.

        March 3, 2014 at 8:52 AM

        Hopefully sometime in the future, we can “share” information on this 1,000 year imprisonment of Satan, the purpose of the “Saints” “ruling” “with Christ” for 1,000 years, and as to what this 1,000 year part of “God’s” overall plan is. See Revelation 20, I think this is the chapter. What I know about this 1,000 year rule is not my opinion, it IS something “God” revealed to me back WHEN I WAS trying to obey him & BEFORE I TOO did a180.BUT, I have done ANOTHER 180. Thank YOU Alfred for your intercession for me, i.e. your prayers. I sorely need them. WE ALL DO !!!

         
  7. Tony

    February 25, 2014 at 4:04 PM

    Hi,

    I have not read this entire article as I am at work, but want to interject now anyway. I think the historical discussion over whether or not man is an animal has been largely a case of semantics, in this case, what one believes is an animal. Is an animal a life form with sentience? Then man is an animal and I am not offended someone declares man an animal given such a definition. After all, the purpose of language is to convey meaning.

    With that and irrespective of what term is used, here is a characteristic of being made in God’s image.

    Genesis 1:26-28
    26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

    Twice very near the two declarations that man is made in God’s image is the declaration that man has dominion over all other living creatures. Here is the place where a contrary belief is required to justify genocide, as an example – that man can have dominion over another man.

    That to me is the jugular.

    Though I personally believe the biblical dominion concept requires man has a characteristic unlike all other living creatures. I believe man is the only creature capable of comprehending concepts such as what good and evil are. I believe animals are influenced by good and evil, but an animal is unable to comprehend at the level, “Love is the principle of esteeming all others above oneself and evil the opposing principle of esteeming self above all others.” (This being my personal belief on the matter.)

    That is an astounding difference. It is man’s intellectual superiority and hence his ability to contemplate spiritual themes. And that is something an animal simply cannot do.

    My personal belief is that the term animal is inclusive of recognizing this contrast. An animal has not dominion over all other living creatures and cannot comprehend foundational concepts such as what good and evil are.

    Finally, an appreciation for the concept of potential. A fertilized egg lacks intelligence and I can anticipate the argument that this means a fertilized egg is an animal. The same would apply to someone who is highly unwell. It adds some complexity, but I personally believe the concept of potential also applies.

    Blessings,

    Tony

     
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 6:08 AM

      @ >But, the miracle of the incarnation included the joining of a human sperm to Mary’s egg.

      All I know is, “conceived by/of the Holy Spirit” as the archangel told Joseph. As far as to how this conception was done, the details of it,etc. I don’t know. But, I don’t need to know either. I bet Martens/Jetlag knows.

       
  8. J.M.

    February 25, 2014 at 4:07 PM

    Alfred,
    @ >Whatever is happening with your messages, J.M., it’s not me. It’s something to do with WordPress or your computer or some such.

    The thought NEVER occurred that it was you. NO WAY !!! I asked, gapeb1g, in pertinent part, > Can ANY government plant do something to prevent messages from posting completely? < This is what I mainly was concerned about. Alfred, AIN'T no way You are a "government plant." As best as I can recall, this posting problem ONLY occurs when it has something to do with The Holy Bible, subject matter. You have to say so yourself, that it could be a fatal mistake for "whoever" if something you receive says something BAD, but only the sender would know the real reason as to why. ALL the message DID NOT post, BUT only the sender would know this. This is what I am concerned about. But, regardless of what happens, it will all work out for good in the end.

     
  9. Californian

    February 25, 2014 at 4:13 PM

    If we are not still created in His image, then why would Christ bother to redeem us?, Not to mention, Jesus was a spotless man in Gods image. And He made us whole again. He chains us to Him in righteousness. We failed and He made us spotless in our faith.

     
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 5:00 PM

      California, California, < recalling something Phil Robertson said.< lol

      Hi Californian,

      @ Jesus was a spotless man in Gods image.

      I with you, yes indeed. I asked Jellag/Martens, Was Jesus Christ half of an animal? I did not get an answer. SEE, Jesus did not have a flesh & blood sire/Father. BUT, he did have a flesh & blood Mother.

       
      • Tony

        February 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM

        But, the miracle of the incarnation included the joining of a human sperm to Mary’s egg.

        Romans 1:3
        3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed [Greek: spermatos] of David according to the flesh,

        God is not composed of created material and Jesus truly was incarnated a male, meaning He was, in part, composed of cells with an XY chromosome pair.

        I highly doubt Jesus could both be a man and lack y chromosomes.

        Tony

         
  10. citizenquasar

    February 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM

    I think the MAOO argument is excellent, grammatically correct, and flawless…and I am not even a Christian. This “Jetlag” guy sounds like he has too much time on his hands…and perhaps a screw loose too.

     
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 5:37 PM

      @ >This “Jetlag” guy sounds like he has too much time on his hands…and perhaps a screw loose too.

      Where WAS everybody on the other similar thread? Or, like the lady from Germany said, WHERE IS EVERYBODY??? IF I, J.M. had been banned, I would perhaps have a screw loose too, Right??

       
      • deb

        February 25, 2014 at 7:14 PM

        @ IF I, J.M. had been banned, I would perhaps have a screw loose too, Right??
        How many Dons does one screw loose make?

         
      • citizenquasar

        February 27, 2014 at 8:32 AM

        I don’t comment here very often.

         
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 7:15 PM

      @ >I think the MAOO argument is excellent, grammatically correct, and flawless…and I am not even a Christian.

      I believe, at this time, the reason you,citizenquasar, think this way, & say what you did as showing above, is because you are honest & have an open mind. Maybe, sooner or later, you will want to be more like him, Alfred Adask, in the way he thinks. Here you are, citizenquasar, open & honest enough to say you are not a Christian, & yet you can grasp the thoughts of what a Christian MAN is saying. I like you citizenquasar, because you are honest, at least you have been so far. I hope you will STAY that way. I know it does not matter what I say or think, but, it’s better for you or anyone to be honest. It is a rare quality in this day & time.

       
      • citizenquasar

        February 26, 2014 at 8:43 AM

        Thanks.

         
    • J.M.

      February 27, 2014 at 7:59 PM

      citizenquasar
      @> I don’t comment here very often.

      Why?? Is it because I, J.M., don’t give anybody else a chance to comment ???

       
  11. Jetlag

    February 25, 2014 at 5:06 PM

    @Adask

    It is fitting that you included a comic book illustration with this article, because reducing the criticism of your misrepresentation of Genesis 9:6 to the word “was” is only the cartoon version of the criticism.

    The real problem you have with Genesis 9:6 is that, in whatever translation you choose, this verse does NOT say man IS made in God’s image.

    “The bird has built a nest.”

    “The bird built a nest.”

    “A nest was built by the bird.”

    None of these mean the bird IS building nests.

    Similarly, none of the translations of Genesis 9:6 say God is currently making man in his image. They only tell us man WAS, at one time, made in God’s image.

    Therefore, using Genesis 9:6 as the basis for an argument that man IS made in God’s image is invalid.

    What you attempt to draw from Genesis 9:6, namely that man is made in God’s image, is not really present in Genesis 9:6, rather you add it to scripture.

     
    • Martens

      February 25, 2014 at 9:09 PM

      1 Corinthians 15:44-45 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 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:

      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.

      So we see that Adam was made a living ________, where the blank is a noun.

      From the definition of “psyche” above, whatever this noun is, it’s exclusively animal.

      The above definition of “psyche” distinguishes it from “pneuma” (G4151), which is distinctly human.

      Now we understand what Paul meant by the following:

      1 Corinthians 15:42-44 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

      The terms “perishable”, “in dishonor”, “in weakness”, and “natural” – which describe one’s current, earthly body – do not describe an image of God such as that possessed by Adam.

      The terms “imperishable”, “in glory”, “in power”, and “spiritual” – which describe one’s future body remade to be like Christ’s glorious body – do describe an image of God such as that possessed by Adam.

       
      • J.M.

        February 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM

        Re: Martens/Jetlag,
        @ >Well, Alfred needs his funny bone tickled once in a while too

        BUT, the same JOKE repeated OVER & OVER & OVER DOES GET TO BE BORING. The same repeated joke got to be maddening to me, Desecrating The SACRED Love BOOK of The Creator & Sustainer of the Universe. But their WOES are just around the bend UNLESS they repent. I need to repent for my thoughts of them, I guess. It’s one of those love your enemies requirements I have not matured enough to do at least from my heart. BUT I do pray for their repentance. That’s all I can do at this time & place.

         
      • J.M.

        February 27, 2014 at 12:43 AM

        Martens
        @>Now we understand

        Do you really?? this sounds too good to be true.

        Jetlag,
        @> None of these mean the bird IS building nests.

        What it means IS, they were so full of crap, It WAS best not to try “building” any more. Anyway, Animals sometimes get caught in their own traps. I’m glad I am aware of God’s health laws. He instructs me to stay away from unclean things. He says it’s not healthy. bye bye & you will not be missed.

         
    • Martens

      February 25, 2014 at 10:35 PM

      Let us proceed like students of the Bible and take a closer look at the verse on which the Adask argument is based:

      Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

      Strong’s concordance has two numbers after “made” in this verse, namely H6213 and H8804.

      The first number, H6213, means “to do or make”, which is not in dispute.

      However, what is germane to this discussion, because it proves you correct, is the second Strong’s number: H8804, which describes the particular form of “made” used in Genesis 9:6.

      The so-called “mood” (a grammatical term) used is the “perfect” form, which Strong’s tells us “expresses a completed action”.

      Accordingly, students of the Bible conclude that Genesis 9:6 says God “made” man in his image in the sense of a completed, not an ongoing, action.

      Well done, Jetlag.

       
      • Martens

        February 25, 2014 at 11:54 PM

        More:

        Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

        A different Strong’s online resource has a footnote attached to the verb “made” in this verse. This footnote explains that “made” here has the Kal Preterite form, defined as follows:

        Kal: Generally indicates a simple action or state, with no element of causation. Although there is a rare passive form of the Kal stem, the Kal stem typically expresses action in the active voice.

        Preterite: Generally indicates past or completed action. Preterites are usually translated as simple pasts (“He ran”) or as past perfects (“He has run”), but they may also be translated as present or future actions which can somehow be thought of as complete.

        Here, again, man being made in God’s image is a complete action. If God still, today, was making men in his image, God’s making of man in his image would be an ongoing, not a completed, action.

        God’s making of men is obviously ongoing, and thus not complete. Yet, Genesis 9:6 tells us God’s making of men in his image is complete.

        So we see that Genesis 9:6 says only that man WAS made in God’s image.

         
      • Jethro

        February 26, 2014 at 12:04 AM

        “Well done, Jetlag.”

        Seriously? Why don’t you “two” use your government Disruption Operation payment to rent a room so you can make out in private.

         
      • Yartap

        February 26, 2014 at 1:10 AM

        My Strong’s Concordance DOES NOT have two defining words given for “made” in Genesis 9:6, only the H: 6213.

         
      • Jetlag

        February 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM

        @Martens

        Thanks for the research.

        I await the Adask reply to what you’ve posted here, because how the word “made” is used in Genesis 9:6 is, of course, fundamental.

         
      • J.M.

        February 26, 2014 at 5:18 AM

        @ > Let us proceed like students of the Bible and take a closer look……..

        Is this all you want to do, continually “proceed like a student?” Actually you have not even made it to the grade of a “beginning student.” You say, Let us proceed LIKE < get the picture? Yes, I have scratched my head & tried to understand WHY Alfred continually allowed you/Jetlag to spew out your tunnel vision, < AT BEST, understanding of the scriptures. Well, Alfred needs his funny bone tickled once in a while too. Ohhh , by the way, Martens/Jetlag, you may appreciate what I am about to say. You may recall I said I have a parakeet. His name is, Jerry Bird, ANYWAY, Jerry always said, "good morning, I love you." NOW, Jerry says, good morning, I love you, haul ass. Darn. Well I have to confess I HAVE been shouting it out a LOT lately & so I asked for it.

         
      • J.M.

        March 3, 2014 at 1:51 AM

        AFTER Alfred’s Undertaker coffin builder explanation to Jetlag, & his showing the absurdity of Jetlag’s position, Martens says, “Let us proceed.” yeh, Let us proceed.Talk about Arrogance, BULL HEADINESS & TENACIOUS. And then address Alfred as “Professor” & allegedly Martens/ Jetlag, humble position by saying, Let us proceed “like” students of the Bible. I wonder how far Martens/Jetlag would get in College proceeding like students instructing the Professor of his lack of knowledge, incompetence, ineptness,etc? Very far? Everything about this hidden agenda of Jetlag/Martens was DEMENTED to me. Glad it’s over but it really isn’t. Wait & see. There are OTHER Martens/Jetlags getting prepared to come in & attempt to destroy the Flock.Wait & see.

        “God” says we cannot conceive of the things he has planned & in store for those who love him. But, We are going to have to PROVE we do. He doesn’t want anymore “Lucifer rebellions.” PLEAS pray for Alfred Adask. He has a golden heart.

         
    • Yartap

      February 26, 2014 at 1:07 AM

      1 Corinthians 11:7
      “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he IS the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” K.J.V.

      “But a man shall not cover his head, for he IS the image and glory of God; but a woman is the glory of man.” WYC.

      “For a man ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he IS the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” GNV.

      Paul says that man “IS” the image and glory of God.

       
      • Jetlag

        February 26, 2014 at 1:55 AM

        @Yartap

        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.

        I brought this up myself and dealt with it in another thread recently.

        Paul never contradicts himself. He says elsewhere that man must acquire the image of God, so here Paul must be referring to those who have already done so, to some extent at least.

        Note I say “to some extent”, because man does not completely recover the image of God until after death, as Paul informs us elsewhere. The process is ongoing.

        Until the process is complete, it remains in some way correct to refer to man as fallen, “earthly”, “vile”, “lowly”, etc.

        1 Corinthians 15:42-44 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

        The terms “perishable”, “in dishonor”, “in weakness”, and “natural” – which describe one’s current, earthly condition – do not describe an image of God.

        A bit previous to 1 Corinthians 11:7, which you have cited, we find the context of this verse:

        1 Corinthians 11:3-5 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

        The verse you cited is addressed to Christians, and Christian worshipers in particular.

        So, when Paul told his audience that man was the image of God, he was not referring to man as such – i.e. man as he is made – but rather man as he is (in the process of being) re-made through Christ.

        In this way all the statements by Paul regarding fallen man (e.g. Adam) verses the image of God (e.g. Jesus Christ) are interpreted as consistent.

         
      • Adask

        February 26, 2014 at 2:36 AM

        Jetlag, you’re insistent stupidity is beginning to bore me. I am wasting time on a fool who refuses to admit his arguments, and worse, his “interpretations” of the language are at best, idiotic. I try not to waste my audience’s time, and I especially dislike others who waste my time. Assuming your argument based on 1 Cor. 11:3-5 were valid, it supports the conclusion that, at minimum, those who are Christians are (or at least can be) “made in God’s” image. My original argument in the MOOA case is that 1) I am a Christian; 2) it is a fundamental principle of my Christian faith that men are made in God’s image; 3) I’m a man made in God’s image; 4) my freedom of religion is protected by the 1st Amendment; 5) any statute that treats me as an animal is a violation of a fundamental principle of the Christian faith; 5) therefore, I am not subject to MOOA statutes.

        If I recall correctly, there’s passage in the Bible that runs something like this: If a brother makes a mistake, call on him and try to help him correct that mistake. If the brother refuses to accept that correction, bring in several other brothers to visit the brother-in-error, and again try to help him correct that mistake. If the brother-in-error still insists on maintaining his mistake, shun him. Well, brother, you can now count yourself as shunned (barred) from this blog. Bye-bye.

         
      • Adask

        February 26, 2014 at 2:17 AM

        Yartrap, thanks for the research. You’re proving that that man was still made in God’s image even after the Messiah’s crucifixion. I am much appreciative.

         
      • Martens

        February 26, 2014 at 2:56 AM

        Mr. Adask,

        As you may have noticed, my views on this matter are substantially the same as Jetlag’s.

        Should I consider myself banned also?

         
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 12:22 PM

      Jetlag is defined as,

      Jetlag, also called desynchronosis, is a temporary disorder that causes a variety of temporary mental and physical impairments (lost the source, will try to find & post it)

       
    • J.M.

      February 27, 2014 at 4:18 PM

      Jetlag,
      @ >I brought this up myself and dealt with it in another thread recently.

      Myself Myself Myself Myself Myself Myself self self self self

      @ >Paul never contradicts himself. He says elsewhere that man must acquire the image of God, ………..”

      You betcha Paul NEVER contradicts HIMSELF BECAUSE to say so, also means “God” contradicts himself. This image to be “acquired” is the IMAGE some of US will have in the FIRST Resurrection. Recall Paul saying WE SHALL SEE HIM AS HE IS FOR WE WILL BE AS HE IS IS IS IS. There is a PHYSICAL IMAGE AND A SPIRITUAL IMAGE We are supposed to work with this PRESENT physical image & at least TRY to overcome the downward pull within us to do WRONG to DEVELOP this present image into being acceptable to be the spiritual image,

      Scriptures available for anyone who may be interested. BUT not to those interested to say they, the scriptures, do not mean what they say. That which is born of the flesh IS IS IS FLESH and that which IS BORN of the SPIRIT IS IS IS Spirit. < This scripture is only ONE witness. There ARE MANY MORE WITNESSES. But IF the ONE scripture saying that which is BORN of the FLESH doesn't mean what it says PLAINLY, the ALL the remainder of the witnesses will not be believed either. Jesus Christ, THE FIRSTBORN FIRSTBORN FIRSTBORN of many BRETHREN TO COME, LATER LATER LATER aka the FIRST RESURRECTION BRETHREN.

       
    • J.M.

      March 2, 2014 at 6:47 PM

      Hi Guy (s),

      IF it turns out in the end that “you” are right, & I mean this sincerely, I honestly would rather be thrown into the Lake of fire & brimstone,<THAT HELL, than spend eternity in "heaven" with the likes of you & your kind because that would be MORE HELLISH, than HELL ITSELF.& I say this in the presence of Almighty God,The Creator, Life giver & Sustainer of the UNIVERSE.To say You ARE a smug, arrogant, pompous, insulting ego maniac, PROUD, PHONY pseudo-intellectual is putting you up on a pedestal. I wish I could say I feel sorry for you, but I cannot. If someone said this about me it would break my heart, but I know it makes you angry, & makes you laugh telling you of your high quality traits because you are heartless. I told you your hidden agenda would fail didn't I ?

       
    • J.M.

      March 11, 2014 at 6:57 PM

      Jetlag,
      @ > It is fitting that you included a comic book illustration with this article…….”

      WOW !!! I never thought YOU, Jetlag, would say something I could agree with. YES INDEED, it is very comical, especially the WAS word. Jetlag, U IS a WAS BEEN, U has been banned. GOOD !!!

       
  12. henry

    February 25, 2014 at 5:14 PM

    Perhaps you should ask the former President to enter the debate:

    “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” – Bill Clinton

     
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 7:02 PM

      @ It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” – Bill Clinton

      Once again, it depends on what his, Jetlag’s definition of “was, IS.” This IS all that matters to him/her/IT. Anyone that does not admire Alfred Adask after reading his, at least PLEASING to me, article, above, has to have a heart of STONE. I owe citizenquazar an apology. When I saw,”posting comment” on my response, to citizenquasar, I hoped it would not post, but it was too late to do anything about it.

       
  13. J.M.

    February 25, 2014 at 5:16 PM

    @ >Yes, I tend to be long-winded and verbose. (And if you think my last comment was overly “voluminous,” wait’ll you see this one.)

    Way to go Bro.LOL-LOL-LOL

     
  14. Jetlag

    February 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM

    @Californian > “If we are not still created in His image, then why would Christ bother to redeem us?”

    Christ redeemed mankind so that we could once again be made in God’s image. In the language of Paul, Christ, the last Adam, reversed the damage done by the first Adam.

    As to Christ himself, he was, and is, made in God’s image.

    John 12:45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me.

    John 14:9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”

    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.

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

     
  15. Martens

    February 25, 2014 at 6:04 PM

    J.M. said: “IF I, J.M. had been banned, I would perhaps have a screw loose too, Right??”

    Prof. Adask has banned you several times already, Les Fuchs, and remarked on your screws loose.

    Read all about it:

    https://adask.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/on-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church-ok-but-which-rock

    The longevity of your current “J.M.” moniker is likely due to the “teacher’s pet” cheerleading role you have switch to, whereas before you played the rebel without a cause.

     
    • Jetlag

      February 25, 2014 at 8:00 PM

      I’m guessing the many-times-banned Les Fuchs troll, a.k.a “J.M.” this time around, is still posting from the Santa Fe area.

       
  16. Roger

    February 25, 2014 at 7:14 PM

    tl;dr

     
  17. J.M.

    February 25, 2014 at 7:23 PM

    Some ANIMALS by NATURE love to root & REND too.

     
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 7:44 PM

      Also, I forgot to say, your “teacher’s pet” LIE is only another INSULT to Alfred. Alfred has probably forgot more than I will ever know but I don’t think it’s fair to him that HE has to be the ONLY one to show TWO other SELF PROFESSED ANIMALS the errors of their/ ITS ways. I was only trying to help, if possible to lighten his load. BUT, as I, J. M. said before, it’s impossible for me to teach SOME ANIMALS ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER. You even get Yartap to agreeing with you once in a while. NOT ME THO !!

       
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 9:29 PM

      @ >Some ANIMALS by NATURE love to root & REND too.

      Yes, and even a BLIND HOG can root up an acorn every now & then. IF I had went along with jetlag/Martens deception EVIL teachings NONE of this Les Fooches/Don, etc would have EVER been brought up to START WITH. The Only thing I have said to have possibly upset anybody was when I said, STAY AWAY FROM ME SATAN, HAUL ASS. Well, guess what I MEANT IT !!!

       
  18. J.M.

    February 25, 2014 at 8:09 PM

    To who it may concern,
    I have NEVER been banned from this site. I thought I MAY have been. BUT, apparently, I have not been YET. Anyway, ONCE AGAIN, I “SEE” what this thread is leading into so, I hope I get it right THIS TIME, by saying That’s it from me ON THIS THREAD. I am not a glutton for punishment. Yes it’s true, not even trying to do something good will go unpunished. ALL you animals are going to be slaughtered anyway, sooner or later. EVEN Elvis Presley had & still has a lot of “look a likes” & even sounded like him, but, NONE of them had what Elvis REALLY had. You animals are so superficial & shallow & only have tunnel vision, it’s beyond belief. I think about all those woes that Jesus Christ said WOE to.

     
    • Martens

      February 25, 2014 at 8:25 PM

      J.M. said: “I have NEVER been banned from this site.”

      That isn’t saying much. Since you often use the phrase “I, J.M.”, this only means your latest moniker “J.M.” has not been banned yet.

      Funny, but the banned Don, the banned Sparky, and the banned Les Fuchs would also use this unusual construct in their posts. That is: “I, Don”, “I, Sparky”, and “I, Les Fuchs”.

      Incidentally, are you still posting from the Santa Fe area?

       
      • J.M.

        February 25, 2014 at 10:18 PM

        Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!……………………….”

        24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

        25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

        26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

        27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

        28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

        29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

        30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

        31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

        32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

        33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

        34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

        35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

        Righteous Abel !!! Think about it. How many know who Abel was or IS. It doesn’t matter which word you choose to use. How many know what “righteous” means? I’ll hold on to what I believe it means regardless of what anybody else says. So don’t anyone go to the time & effort to try to tell me what it means.

        WOE TO YOU MARTENS/ Jetlag& “others” of like mind & HEART !!!

         
      • J.M.

        February 25, 2014 at 11:53 PM

        That isn’t saying much. Since you often use the phrase “I, J.M.”, this only means your latest moniker “J.M.” has not been banned yet.

        WHY ???

         
  19. deb

    February 25, 2014 at 8:31 PM

    While we can use the “created in the image of God” argument, which refers to the knowledge and glory of God, man-Adam volunteered it away to another created (not in the image of God) being and therefore stripped himself of that image.

    But through the blood sacrifice of the spotless Lamb of God who is the image of the invisible God, we can once again be(come) in His image and therefore are in His image, IF we accept His offer to become such by believing in Yahshua and obeying Him.

    Believers being the body of Christ-Messiah we are His image who is the image of Him (Yahveh) that created Him (Messiah).

    “Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature: 2 Cor. 5:7 Without Christ Messiah there is no more “in his image” claim.

    I claim the blood of Messiah–King of kings and Lord of lords–as a new created being, heir to the promise. Man’s rules/regulations mean nothing. There is power in the blood and name of Yahshua.

     
    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 10:37 PM

      Who was “Righteous Abel,” deb? The “Righteous Abel” that Jesus Christ.spoke of in Matthew 23.

       
      • deb

        February 25, 2014 at 11:41 PM

        Adam was made from dust, then God breathed into his nostrils, then he became a living soul with the spirit of God in him-righteous. He lost his standing when he partook of the forbidden fruit. When Eve partook of the forbidden fruit and then gave Adam to partake she had a multiple conception. Cain in the image of the Serpent and Abel in the image of Adam-twins. It was his blood (seed) that was righteous because Abel was conformed to the will of God through his keeping the commands of God-lamb blood sacrifice.

        Later Adam begat Seth in his own likeness after the his own image (Gen.5:3) which was after the fall/sin–in his sinful nature. Seth had Enos (who walked with God and then he was not?) It was after Enos that man began to call upon the name of Yahveh.

        The gap was bridged at the cross/stake.

        Now we can again be in His image in His likeness only through the door–Yahshuah.

        Anyone claiming he is created in the image of God without the blood of Yahshua is a pretender.

         
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 12:10 AM

      Who was “Righteous Abel,” deb? The “Righteous Abel” that Jesus Christ.spoke of in Matthew 23.

       
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 4:48 AM

      @ >Eve partook of the forbidden fruit and then gave Adam to partake she had a multiple conception.

      Wow. oh my. I love in depth Holy Bible knowledge, deb. Will you be so kind & point out the scripture(s) that clearly show this “multiple conception ???” I think you are saying, now I may be wrong, but I think you are saying, that both Satan & Adam had sexual intercourse with Eve. If I am right, please answer by simply saying, yes. IF I am wrong, just answer by saying, no. I’ll make it easy for you. You can cut & paste one of these two words, & this way you won’t even have to go to the trouble of typing either one. I do everything I can think of to try & get a response to my questions because I rarely get a response from anybody except Skip Robinson & Alfred. > YES NO

       
      • deb

        February 26, 2014 at 9:52 AM

        Gen. 3:15-16

         
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 3:11 PM

      deb, hi there,
      @ >Gen. 3:15-16

      Thanks deb, especially for giving the scripture to consider. I do appreciate this. I am trying to be a good berean & AM in the process of looking into this deeper in hopes to understand if I have been believing something false for so many years. It’s not easy to just discard anything we hold on to for years when we believe it is the truth. I am aware that in the end time “knowledge shall be increased” so it could very well be that my understanding of what Genesis 3:15-16 is wrong. I will do all the research I possibly can to see if I can understand Genesis 3:15-16 as you do because I do want to know all of the truth about anything I can. In the meantime you can be of enormous help to me in all the research I “may” have to do by answering the following. Are you,deb, saying, that Eve’s partaking of the forbidden fruit is what made her pregnant? By this, I mean was it the forbidden fruit itself that got Eve pregnant? IF you will be so kind as to answer this for me, & make it as brief as you can, it will help me reduce my workload a lot. Thanks !!!

      @ >Eve partook of the forbidden fruit and then gave Adam to partake she had a multiple conception.

       
      • deb

        February 26, 2014 at 7:58 PM

        Does a tree have knowledge? Think seed, family tree, genealogy of Adam.
        If Seth was in the image of Adam and Adam in the image of Yah, whose image is Cain–MOOA?

        a website–http://theopenscroll.com/cainsPaternity.htm

         
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 11:56 PM

      deb,
      @ >Does a tree have knowledge?

      Thanks deb. Thought i may have lost you. I “like” to be wrong about “some” things. Please don’t misunderstand. I find out sooner or later & in unpleasant ways I am wrong about this or that & this is disappointing. I will respond as best as possible in a down to earth way just in case there may be somebody not as advanced as you are in “spiritual understanding” will hopefully understand what I am trying to understand by what you, deb, are saying. Now, you ask, does a tree have knowledge. I think everything alive has some kind of knowledge. As to what that knowledge is, I don’t know. Wish we had a botanist to help out here. If, deb, you are specifically meaning the tree of knowledge of good & evil, I believe this tree had something in the fruit itself that brought on the effect or the result of or from eating it. For example, if someone “spiked” let’s say a cherry pie with LSD & someone ate a slice of the pie. I can safely, I think, presume the effect or the result to follow. This tree of knowledge “fruit” had to have something in it to bring on the effect or result it did. It “altered” the minds & I believe the brains of Adam & Eve. I hope I have not confused you. This is about the best I can do to answer your question of, does a tree have knowledge. ok ?? It seems we are going to have to handle this a “little piece at a time” so as to arrive at hopefully a mutual understanding. Is this fair? I hope it is. If I am being unreasonable tell me. Please.

       
    • J.M.

      February 28, 2014 at 1:25 AM

      deb,
      @ >Think seed, family tree, genealogy of Adam.

      Hmmmm -Very subtle clever suggestion. Thanks.

       
    • J.M.

      March 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM

      deb!!!,
      Are you ok ??? I hope so. Haven’t heard from you in a while. When you are ready to continue, let me know. I have some good news for “some” people. So, let me know when you are ready to proceed. ok???

       
  20. J.M.

    February 25, 2014 at 8:59 PM

    Yes, it’s true too, throw enough mud & some of it has GOT to stick

     
  21. Adask

    February 26, 2014 at 4:30 AM

    Martens wrote:

    “Mr. Adask,

    “As you may have noticed, my views on this matter are substantially the same as Jetlag’s.

    “Should I consider myself banned also?”

    Sure, why not?

     
    • Jethro

      February 26, 2014 at 3:00 PM

      I suspect Jetlag and Martens are one in the same, or are at least operating as a tag team duo a la WWF-style entertainment.

       
      • J.M.

        February 26, 2014 at 5:09 PM

        Jethro,
        @ >I suspect Jetlag and Martens are one in the same, or are at least operating as a tag team duo a la WWF-style entertainment.

        Thought EXACTLY the same thing. It was FORCED upon me EASY. Having access to another source tho, helped me a lot. Fact is, IF NOT for the other source, I would no doubt have BITTEN into their BAIT& BIG TIME.TOO. Hey, Jethro, I like you very much. Julie too. Julie,thanks for your “intercession” for me. please don’t stop.

         
    • J.M.

      February 27, 2014 at 3:31 PM

      Martens aka Jetlag aka Martens
      @ “Mr. Adask,
      @ “As you may have noticed, ”

      As YOU Martens/Jetlag MAY remember, I, J.M. said, I had a dream last night. I SAW a long rope. If I, J.M. tried to describe what I also SAW comprising this long rope & what happened, I would probably be hauled off to the loony toony place of rest. By, I J. M.saying I saw a long rope WAS saying enough, as you, Martens / Jetlag, Jetlag /Martens MAY HAVE NOTICED, IS & WAS saying enough. No more needs to be said, NOW.

       
    • J.M.

      February 28, 2014 at 2:52 AM

      “Should I consider myself banned also?”

      @ > Sure, why not?

      You’re funny. I wrote a letter to Joan Rivers one time & I said, Joan Rivers, you make me laugh, ……heartily. She wrote me a letter back, handwritten, too. I never expected that. I thought she would never see my letter. I know she read my letter because she answered the questions I asked. It was a heart warming response from her. The funniest people have the deepest hearts I think & have been hurt the most. You make me laugh Alfred…………. heartily. This thread has extended my life span but I don’t know if I should be happy or not about this. Anyway thanks for leading me to Pastor Eric.

       
  22. Roger

    February 26, 2014 at 4:59 AM

    lol, awesome blog!

    I’ve seen enough, I shall now self-ban.

    bye-bye

     
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 5:43 AM

      @ @ I’ve seen enough, I shall now self-ban.

      It’s called separating the chaff from the wheat. Please don’t self destruct.

       
    • J.M.

      February 27, 2014 at 2:13 PM

      Roger,
      @ I’ve seen enough, I shall now self-ban

      For how long ? Martens/Jetlag may have posted a link as to where they can be reached,etc. I HOPE they did. Everybody needs to be together with their own kind. I won’t give you this source that tells me this, because THEN, you would not agree & you will all stay separated, & come on a blog like this one to try & separate us. It’s getting to be close to a “one on one” situation anyway. But regardless of what you do, you can never separate ANY of us from the only ONE that matters.

       
    • J.M.

      February 27, 2014 at 8:23 PM

      @ >I’ve seen enough, I shall now self-ban.

      Yeh, U aine no dummy. SOME people & some ANIMALS TOO know better than to bite off more that he/she/it can chew, SHO DUE. Some do know when it’s time to back up & punt, OR just back up period or RUN. I remember seeing a coiled rattlesnake one time. I was walking towards it. You better believe I started backing up & then I did a 180 & RAN LIKE ALL HELL was breaking loose. Some people say that is a cowardly act. I call it SMART, or at least having the sense of a goose. High IQ level people would say it’s debatable.

       
      • J.M.

        March 3, 2014 at 7:08 PM

        To the tune of Bringing in the sheaves

        Weeding out the chaff, Weeding out the chaff,sitting here delited, makes me wanna laugh oh lordy Weeding out the chaff, Weeding out the chaff, it’s all over rover when you have Moses staff

        Want some more??

         
    • J.M.

      March 11, 2014 at 10:32 PM

      Roger,

      @ > lol, awesome blog!

      It’s not really the blog, it’s the Commander & Chief that makes it awesome !!! LOL LOL LOL

      @ I’ve seen enough

      Some people have to learn the perfect squelch way. You are an exception. Congratulations on your perception. I salute you for your understanding. My learning everything else the hard way is why I love this blog except for some of the “BEASTLY SAVAGES” who creep in. Thanks for self banning. Makes it easier for some of us who want to understand what is good & what is evil & to choose the good over the evil. You & your “kind” do make it more difficult.

       
  23. palani

    February 26, 2014 at 9:59 AM

    This reminds me of all the arguments that can be presented that man has never walked on or planted a flag on the moon. There are many of these arguments: stars that don’t twinkle, shadows, flags that wave in vacuum, van allen belt, level of technology available, etc. Yet all these arguments evaporate with one argument … that there is no moon. Nobody has yet proven that the moon exists and if it doesn’t exist then how could Man’s footstep take substance there?

    Courtesy of Frank Sinatra:

    It is only a paper moon
    Sailing over a cardboard sea
    But it wouldn’t be make believe
    If you believed in me

    Yes, it’s only a canvas sky
    Hangin’ over a muslin tree
    But it wouldn’t be make believe
    If you believed in me

    Statute laws as they exist in a post 14th amendment world apply only to corporations and corporate entities and the armies they establish to enforce their rule. These statute laws have absolutely no application to natural people and therefore it matters not what they say because they are of no authority.

     
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 2:41 PM

      palani,

      @ >Yet all these arguments evaporate with one argument … that there is no moon. Nobody has yet proven that the moon exists and if it doesn’t exist then how could Man’s footstep take substance there?

      Could evaporate with one argument………..” Could evaporate, or will evaporate? I’m sure you are 100% correct palani, IF there are people who are easily persuaded that whatever whoever says, is the way it IS. All we will have is a yes, no, don’t know, but maybe, dog chasing its tail event. palani, is everything we have 5 senses for, only an illusion?

       
      • palani

        February 26, 2014 at 2:54 PM

        “is everything we have 5 senses for, only an illusion?”

        If there is a moon then it must have an account number. What is the account number of the moon? If there is none then there is no moon.

         
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 3:26 PM

      @ >What is the account number of the moon?

      Oh my. I don’t know, palani. Are you allowed to tell me so I will know when I look up in the sky on an uncloudy night, I can then know that what I thought I was seeing for longer than I care to remember, called the moon, is really there? Is this number a secret, not to be revealed? May I give this illusion called the moon my own made up account number so then it will FINALLY be real & not an illusion?

      p.s I did not see any difference in the Sears or M.W books as far as “feeling goes.” I really did not like either one but BOTH were much better than corncobs, in my opinion. Maybe a female would disagree. Shucks, I don’t know.

       
    • J.M.

      February 27, 2014 at 3:08 PM

      @ >Courtesy of Frank Sinatra:
      Paper Moon

      Tell me I’m wrong. I say you, palani, love that song. PLEASE tell me I’m wrong. Your no response will be deemed to be, YES, I, palani love that song, Or YES, I do like that song.

       
    • J.M.

      February 28, 2014 at 4:57 PM

      @ >If there is a moon then it must have an account number.

      Can I really count on this as being 100% true? It seems most people are of no account..Actually the only thing I can count on is my fingers + I have my God & my King. I most certainly can count on him & his & my Father. I like you a lot palani..YOU have a good heart. You’re extra extra sharp too but in a good way. I have enough sense to know when I’m outranked, etc. Just to be “associated” with good great people makes me happy. Oh yes. I am a buck private. you are a 5 star General, but this makes me happy. It really does. It makes some people jealous & resentful. But it takes all kinds to make this the best of all, at this time, possible worlds.BUT, there IS a NEW beautiful world coming, you can count on it, & I ain’t talking about no or a N.W.O.either.

       
  24. Tony

    February 26, 2014 at 11:38 AM

    Hi,

    Just a couple thoughts with respect to “made in God’s image.”

    I believe the past tense is correct because we are told creation was finished at 6 days. I believe conception is not a creation event and a creation event refers to the “stuff” that makes up this realm. All that “stuff” was created in 6 days and none of it was created after those six days.

    In a sense, the “made in God’s image” discussion is a bit different than the animal discussion in that it is being assumed that if a being is made in God’s image it must not be an animal and if not made in God’s image, it must be an animal.

    In spite of the above, I am personally most comfortable assigning to animal the characteristic of having man have dominion over it as well as the concept that malevolent power structures want to lord over man, thereby wanting to reduce man to the status of animals.

    I think the jugular is at that point – dominion. And the assumptions those that seek dominion need to make, the chief assumption being reducing man’s status from the one God gave him.

    As Al has often said, a study of law finds oneself seeing a spiritual battle extending to who one will have as his lord.

    Tony

     
    • J.M.

      February 27, 2014 at 1:57 PM

      @ >As Al has often said, a study of law finds oneself seeing a spiritual battle extending to who one will have as his lord.

      Some of US understand this IS EXACTLY what is going on. We have different degrees of understanding this TRUTH. It makes sense a little bit to some, a little more sense to some more, & on. SOME of US know it is 100% TRUE. And as Walter Cronkite would say, “and that’s that’s the way it IS.

       
      • Adask

        February 27, 2014 at 3:08 PM

        Walter Cronkite?!! Who th’ heck is Walter Cronkite? Must’ve been before my time.

         
  25. Mark

    February 26, 2014 at 1:03 PM

    Awesome smackdown Al. The simple fact is, Genesis 9:6 states that:

    “If anyone takes a human life, that person’s life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image.” (New Living Translation)…

    “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
    By man his blood shall be shed;
    For in the image of God
    He made man.” (New King James Version).

    The point is He made ALL of mankind in His image, it does not state that He made Adam only.

     
  26. Doris Day

    February 26, 2014 at 2:21 PM

    God sent His Son to save MANKIND not animals because we are made in the image of God. Did you tell him that?

    God Bless You Doris

    On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:43:04 +0000

     
    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 3:37 PM

      Doris Day,

      @ >God sent His Son to save MANKIND not animals because we are made in the image of God.

      Martens aka Jetlag SAY mankind ARE ANIMALS. That’s what this freeforall “WAS” all about. BUT, there are more cockroaches in the woodwork who will soon be crawling out of their dens of iniquity to start the same program over again. Ain’t no end to umm.

       
  27. palani

    February 27, 2014 at 7:48 PM

     
    • J.M.

      March 6, 2014 at 7:24 PM

      @ > If there is a moon then it must have an account number

      palani, does pie R squared have anything to do with it? The moon is round like a pie,ain’t it?

      OR, is this just another illusion I am having? (lol) You light up my life. Thanks for throwing out the lifeline for me on the other thread, I forget which one it WAS or IS. The one where you brought up the Un & Inflammable “picture.”

       
  28. J.M.

    March 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM

    palani,

    @ > If there is a moon then it must have an account number.

    There is, a moon, but this moon refuses to say what the account number IS of “this” moon. I learned something from Martens/Jetlag,just a few minutes ago. I really did. The word moniker must mean, e.g., palani, Jethro, citizenquasar, J.M., which must be my “moniker. I thought the k was accidently inserted instead of a T, as in, Tom. I don’t like these computer terms,boot, blog, moniker, etc. Seems we are being re-educated. I don’t know if this is good or not. I thought the Monitor was like a T.V. screen.

     

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