Amillennialism

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Heifer, Ram and Goat ised for passover and Christ our messiah portrayed the role of all three of these animal sacrifices during his earthly ministry of 3.5 years.

No, Jesus attended THREE Passovers in his Ministry, laying down His Life with the third.

That makes the longest His Ministry could have lasted a little less than three years, but around 3 years is what the Bible says.

If He had ministered for three and a half years, He would would have gone to FOUR Passovers in that time.

There is no recording of His attending four Passovers in His Ministry, so His Ministry could not have been 3.5 years long.

Only Preterists try to say that Jesus' Ministry was the first half of the one 'seven'.

Jesus "confirmed" (and that is NOT what gabar means) NO COVENANT at the start of His Ministry. If you say He did - prove it.

Jesus' only COVENANT that He made was the NEW COVENANT.
And that was not a strengthening of any Old Testament Covenant.
And that was on the EVE of His Crucifixion - at the END of His Ministry - not at the start.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Indeed you expose yourself to knowing absolutly nothing, so this gives me great pleasure
"gabar” throughout scripture is used in connection with the House of Judah and the House of Joseph and their restoration.

Wrong! gabar is not used throughout Scripture in connection with the House of Judah.

Job 15:25 Because he (the wicked man) has stretched out his hand against God
And conducts himself arrogantly against the Almighty.

Job 36:9 Then He declares to them their work
And their transgressions, that they have magnified themselves.

Exposed are you?

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Now “Gabar” has only three Hebrew Letters

Gimmel = Foot or burden-bearer, to gather, carry away.
Beyt = the House of Yisra’el.
Resh = the head of a man, first, beginning, chief ruler.

The very word "Gabar" pictures Christ.

Now let's try a real scholar instead of some half-baked word spin:

The word, "confirm", comes from the Hebrew word gabar.

gabar: to prevail, be mighty, have strength, be great.
"In Arabic, the basic meaning of the root is "to rise, raise, restore," with the idea of being strong, or prevailing over coming only in the derived stems. That the Hebrew may share a similar range of meaning is seen in the Hithpael where the idea is not so much to make oneself prevail over God, as it is to raise oneself up in arrogance and stand in his face (Job 15:25, 36:9). The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior." - Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament p. 148; Harris, Archer and Waltke; Moody Press; 1980.

Jesus did not use God's Might to overcome the Cross, but shed His Blood, karat, as a ransom for many, and so sealed the New Covenant He made the night before.

 

[inchrist]

Boy talk about a stuck pig!


War. 7. 1. 1
(1) Now, as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other such work to be done) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne, and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side.

There it is in black and white boy. Titus gave the order to raze the city and the Temple.
THE ROMANS DESTROYED THE CITY AND THE SANCTUARY.

False witness atin-christ? I've got the last laugh on you.

After the temple was burnt down which was AGAINST his orders.....is there a problem with you understanding basic English?

marcus scholarly work is to accuse a person for the destruction of something after it was destroyed and completely cocks up who actually made up the "roman forces" and then superimposes thats over Daniel 9:26 & 27 .... What an absolute joke

Do you not know how to stay in context of Daniel 9:24-27? The people Daniel is referring to is Israel

Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish

The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary

The jews were responsible for destroying the temple and city.

 

[inchrist]

Now let's try a real scholar instead of some half-baked word spin:

The word, "confirm", comes from the Hebrew word gabar.


gabar: to prevail, be mighty, have strength, be great.
"In Arabic, the basic meaning of the root is "to rise, raise, restore," with the idea of being strong, or prevailing over coming only in the derived stems. That the Hebrew may share a similar range of meaning is seen in the Hithpael where the idea is not so much to make oneself prevail over God, as it is to raise oneself up in arrogance and stand in his face (Job 15:25, 36:9). The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior." - Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament p. 148; Harris, Archer and Waltke; Moody Press; 1980.

Jesus did not use God's Might to overcome the Cross, but shed His Blood, karat, as a ransom for many, and so sealed the New Covenant He made the night before.

And the antichrist did?


So let me get this straight "o' really".

You are dening that gabar has only three Hebrew Letters

Gimmel = Foot or burden-bearer, to gather, carry away.
Beyt = the House of Yisra’el.
Resh = the head of a man, first, beginning, chief ruler.

That Christ who is the“gimmel” the one who “bore the burdens” (Psalm 55:22; Isaiah 14:25; Jeremiah 23:33-38; Matthew 11:30) for the “beyt,” the House of Yisra’el. And he is the chief ruler, the “resh” for the “government shall be upon his shoulder.” is in fact wrong????

And that this Hebrew word“gabar” is used in the following verses to describe how God himself will “prevail”(gabar) in the last days against the enemies of Israel,You will notice that this word “gabar” is used in connection with the House of Judah and the House of Joseph and their restoration: Zechariah 10:12, Isaiah 42:13, 1stChronicles 5:2, Genesis 49:26 is wrong????

And that we find in the law of first mention concerning the covernent and Jacob dividing the offerings in the midst....

Gen 15:10divided them in the midst and you telling me the similarity is wrong with Daniel 9:27 cause the sacrifices to cease in the midst of the week ...........is wrong?????

Lastly Christ baptizm and then his declaration as the messiah on the Sabbath day when Christ went into the synagogue in Nazareth completes the 69th week....even your basics have been proven wrong concerning Daniels seventy weeks.


Now for the SECOND Time O'really scripture demands two or more witnesses that the Antichrist is associated with the covenant....one can not build a doctrine on one verse.

 

[inchrist]

No, Jesus attended THREE Passovers in his Ministry, laying down His Life with the third.

That makes the longest His Ministry could have lasted a little less than three years, but around 3 years is what the Bible says.

If He had ministered for three and a half years, He would would have gone to FOUR Passovers in that time.

There is no recording of His attending four Passovers in His Ministry, so His Ministry could not have been 3.5 years long.

Only Preterists try to say that Jesus' Ministry was the first half of the one 'seven'.

Jesus "confirmed" (and that is NOT what gabar means) NO COVENANT at the start of His Ministry. If you say He did - prove it.

Jesus' only COVENANT that He made was the NEW COVENANT.
And that was not a strengthening of any Old Testament Covenant.
And that was on the EVE of His Crucifixion - at the END of His Ministry - not at the start.

You really dont know your scriptures

Lets start here first

Judah built up a “middle wall of partition” this was achieved by “the law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Ephesians 2:15).

See the Jews thought it was their job to keep the house of Ephraim out of the land instead of trying to win them back. And so the Rabbis invented man-made ordinances which prevented the Gentiles from “coming near” to the temple.

Christ came to call the lost sheep home out of their idolatry and exile and then he came to “confirm” the covenant promised to these “Two Houses” of Israel:

Yirmeyahuw 31:31 Behold, the days come, says YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Yisra’el (Ephrayim), and with the house of Yahuwdah (Judah).

The word “new” covenant here is made with “two” distinct groups. The House of Yisra’el & the House of Yahuwdah! The Hebrew word “new” is the word “chadash” which means “to renew, rebuild and repair.”

Ibriym 8:8 For finding fault with them, he says, Behold, the days come, says YHWH, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Yisra’el (Ephrayim) and with the house of Yahuwdah (Judah).

Christ was the Passover Lamb for Rachel (The House of Judah), but he was also the Red Heifer for Leah (The House of Ephrayim)

Christ "confirmed” the Renewed Covenant prophesied about in Jeremiah 31:31! When Christ died on the tree, the “law of divorce” (Deuteronomy 24:1-3) which prevented the lost tribes from returning to God also died with him.

Its a new marriage contract...hence the bride of christ

O'really you need to start getting a handle on Gods purpose with the House of Judah and the House of Ephraim....loke I said this topoc is clearly over your head...you're out of your depth here

 

[inchrist]

Scripture trumps your silly insistence.


Col 2:16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

The blowing of the Trumpets of God's Wrath is not linked to the Festivals or announcing the new moons in any prophecy. And Paul says they are not to be taken literally either - but foreshadow what is to come. atin-christ is making things up in his own strange way of thinking.

Here again, a poor student is just stapling things together willy-nilly.

Again i find myself continually repeating myself with you, this has already been refuted

It suggests no such thing....the feasts holidays are shadows of what is to come....hence Gods statement Holy Convocation

All of Gods feasts are a HOLY CONVOCATION.....in other words they are a HOLY REHEARSAL a HOLY SHADOWS of things to come.

Proof of this lies in the direct springfeasts which CHRIST fulfilled ay his first coming...now when it comes to the fall feasts which are unfulfilled regarding His second coming you wish to be inconsistent with its application?

What does HOLY CONVOCATION mean "o'really"?

 

[inchrist]

What you can't refute is the linking of Scripture which shows the Last Trumpet of God that HE blows is not the seventh Trumpet of God's Wrath that an Angel blows.

Yes I can and i did over and over with you...so again identify hebrew idioms of Rosh Hashanah for me ....what are they?


Oh and by the way what was the procedure when the two witnessss sited the new moon, they had to go to a specific place where a high priest would be standing at the top of the steps and say come up here...because its too the letter of what we find in Revelation at the 7th trumpet.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

After the temple was burnt down which was AGAINST his orders.....is there a problem with you understanding basic English?

Right back atcha -

War. 7. 1. 1
(1) Now, as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other such work to be done) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne, and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side.

He wanted to capture it, sure, but in the end: TITUS DESTROYED THE CITY AND THE SANCTUARY.

That is a fact.
And Titus and his ROMAN troops fulfilled the near-term prophecy in Daniel 9.

So what part of reading comprehension can you not grasp?
Oh yeah, that part that completely obliterates your false contention and contrivances.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Yes I can and i did over and over with you...so again identify hebrew idioms of Rosh Hashanah for me ....what are they?\

No, you did not.

There is no prophecy linking new moons to the seven Trumpets of God's Wrath blown by Angels.

There is specific instruction in Colossians 2:16-17 which prohibits a direct correlation between new moon festivals along with other facets of Jewish ritual and custom TO the end-times.

That is also something else you can't grasp with your "reading comprehension".

So your whole switch to "hebrew idioms" is basically a red herring - and no credible commentary or eschatology leans on them as the basic structure with which to build their theory on the end-times.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Again i find myself continually repeating myself with you, this has already been refuted

A fallacy in argument: Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition): This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repetition alone to substitute for real arguments.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

You really dont know your scriptures

Christ "confirmed” the Renewed Covenant prophesied about in Jeremiah 31:31! When Christ died on the tree, the “law of divorce” (Deuteronomy 24:1-3) which prevented the lost tribes from returning to God also died with him.

As far as proving that Jesus' Ministry lasted 3.5 years - which means Jesus would have celebrated 4 Passovers when the Bible says He only celebrated 3 - atin-christ again gives no Scriptural support.
So who proved they don't know their Scripture?

Jer 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the Lord,

This is a NEW Covenant.
There is NO basis for saying Jesus "confirmed" an OT Covenant.

AND the ONLY time Jesus MADE this New Covenant - was at the END of His little less than three-year Ministry - not at the beginning!

So logically, and that aspect certainly escapes you and other Preterist-leaning minded folk, the fact that Jesus makes the New Covenant at the end of His Ministry PRECLUDES the Sacrifice He makes - karat - to "cut a deal" - on the Cross -- from being the limited to just seven years, or the one 'seven' of Daniel 9:27.

If atin-christ wants to jump down that rabbit hole, then he is forced logically to say that the New Covenant ended before Christians were even known by that name!
That's nonsense!

And the "supposed" 3.5 (not true) years of Jesus' Ministry cannot be the first half - so any Preterist contention that it did - also becomes ridiculous.

And again, the nonsense atin-christ provides falls flat.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

And the antichrist did?

You see folk, when you start with a Preterist outlook, you are constrained by that view into thinking Daniel 9:27 happened in the past.
The ONLY person you can associate with a covenant in the past is Jesus, and thus Preterists jump to the conclusion that Jesus "confirmed" a covenant.

That is hardly the case in regards to the one 'seven'.
Not only did Jesus' Ministry NOT run 3.5 years as Preterists assume, but they, by their insistence that Jesus is the actor of Dan 9;27 -
- LIMIT the New Covenant to just seven years, or a "week" or, as Gabriel terms it: one 'seven'.

That is ridiculous.

So within that mental constraint that Preterists box themselves into - any other figure you would point to: the "prince who shall come" - must also be past.
That is not the case when the one 'seven' is still to come!

So a futuristic, literal, eschatological viewpoint allows that a person - who has yet to be identified (but will ultimately be revealed) - WILL PREVAIL (which is what gabar means) a covenant with many.
This event then sets off the rest of prophecy - which has not been fulfilled yet either - for the one 'seven'.
You can read about the details of the first half of the one 'seven' in Revelation chapter 13.
That culminates in the midpoint abomination revealed as the talking image of the man, and two laws that make the Great Tribulation so terrible for us, that God has to cut it short in order for enough of us as the Father has already determined in His Plan; to live to see Jesus coming on the clouds.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

You are dening that gabar has only three Hebrew Letters

Equally ridiculous. atin-christ cannot quote me where I said gabar doesn't have three letters.
I never said it.

I said that atin-christ's silly, meaningless definition, taken from the figurative meaning of those letters, as defining the word as being Jesus - is totally bunk!

The definition of gabar is quite apart from his silly rendering to suit his own purposes which he wants to establish so as to destroy.
That is a wicked motive.
atin-christ is not trying to educate and uplift; he's attempting to change word meaning so as to attack.

gabar, which by the way has vowels inflected with its consonants, means - when used as a verb - to prevail.
It carries the connotation of military might with it.

You can say, that the anti-Christ forces through by the might of the fourth terrible beast's power - a peace treaty with many, ostensibly with Israel, because Jerusalem, its Capitol, is one of the foci for Gabriel's explanation of God's Plan to Daniel.

No good scholar would render a Hebrew word's meaning strictly on the basis of its forming root word's letters' figurative meaning!
Of course, atin-christ is not a good scholar, much less a scholar at all.

He is a person bent on destruction and obfuscation.
He cannot be relied upon for any serious work.
He has shown time and time again that he has no credibility.

 

[inchrist]

Right back atcha -

War. 7. 1. 1
(1) Now, as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other such work to be done) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne, and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side.

He wanted to capture it, sure, but in the end: TITUS DESTROYED THE CITY AND THE SANCTUARY.

That is a fact.
And Titus and his ROMAN troops fulfilled the near-term prophecy in Daniel 9.

So what part of reading comprehension can you not grasp?
Oh yeah, that part that completely obliterates your false contention and contrivances.

Youre the dimwit who cant get over the fact the order was given after the burning of the temple which was originally destroyed by his Arab troops who were a majority made up of auxiliary and volunteers, who were not Roman citizens...

But please carry on with your distitute belief.

There is specific instruction in Colossians 2:16-17 which prohibits a direct correlation between new moon festivals along with other facets of Jewish ritual and custom TO the end-times.

That is your own misguided forced conjecture into the verse..it prohibits no such thing....I asked you what does HOLY CONVOCATION mean? Last time I checked God never did away with his HOLY CONVOCATION?

But your the expert, do tell me export what does CONVOCATION mean? What does a shadow mean?

So your whole switch to "hebrew idioms" is basically a red herring - and no credible commentary or eschatology leans on them as the basic structure with which to build their theory on the end-times.

But of course you would say that prewrath is destitute in any hebrew thought. I can also through the battle of jericho at you and I can also through Rev 10:7

But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets."

But then again this is over your head as prewrath has no cooking clue what mystery of God is accomplished at the 7th trumpet.

Also the very fact I have an actual literal resurrection and rapture occuring at the 7th trumpet. which I can boast of...your eschatology prewrath doesn't....as I stated I feel sorry for you prewraths everything must just be coincidences for you guys

A fallacy in argument: Argumentum ad nauseam(argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition): This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repetition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Hardly a fallacy when I have two scripture witnesses.

Talking of two scripture witnesses I have asked you a number of times now, where does scripture have the antichrist associated with the covenant???

This is a NEW Covenant.
There is NO basis for saying Jesus "confirmed" an OT Covenant.

The word “new” covenant here is made with “two”distinct groups. The House of Yisra’el & the House of Yahuwdah! The Hebrew word “new” is the word“chadash” which means “to renew, rebuild and repair.” what part of that did you not understand? Was it the word Chadash?, was its meaning renew or repair that threw you off?

AND the ONLY time Jesus MADE this New Covenant - was at the END of His little less than three-year Ministry - not at the beginning!

Well actually the renewed covenant staryed the very minute Christ uttered these words.
Luke: 4:18

The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,

And here

The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand

Pray tell what time was fulfilled?
Clearly, the 70th week had now come, for the 69th week had only brought us “unto the Messiah.”

But then again Oh'really's vanity would even argue with Christ on this matter.

If this measure of time be broken off at the end of the 69th week, then the great events with which the prophecy is concerned -- namely the “cutting off” of the Messiah (thus finishing the transgression, making an end of sin, making reconciliation for iniquity, etc.) -- would be left OUTSIDE THE SEVENTY WEEKS ALTOGETHER!!

You can say, that the anti-Christ forces through by the might of the fourth terrible beast's power - a peace treaty with many, ostensibly with Israel, because Jerusalem, its Capitol, is one of the foci for Gabriel's explanation of God's Plan to Daniel.

This is fanciful, if anyone actually read there bibles would quickly discover the antichrist is completely incapable of any peace treaty...

No good scholar would render a Hebrew word's meaning strictly on the basis of its forming root word's letters' figurative meaning!

This is where you keep showing yourself up as absolutely out of your depth....where do you think they got the military idea for the word Gabar?

Equally ridiculous. atin-christ cannot quote me where I said gabar doesn't have three letters.
I never said it.

Then you shouldnt have issues with the following

Gimmel = Foot or burden-bearer, to gather, carry away.
Beyt = the House of Yisra’el.
Resh = the head of a man, first, beginning, chief ruler.

Well doesnt that sound just like Christ.

Do you not understand the first law of mention concerning the covenant in Daniel 9:27? Please start over and go back to genesis where God is making a covenant with Abraham....alot of similarities. Pay attention.

So logically

Please spare the readers your logic....now i believe I have asked a number of times, that scripture demands two or more witnesses that the Antichrist is associated with the covenant....one can not build a doctrine on one verse.

 

[inchrist]

.

He is a person bent on destruction and obfuscation.
He cannot be relied upon for any serious work.
He has shown time and time again that he has no credibility.

Yes im all for that especially with false teachers like yourself...infact you have gone far beyond with those wonderful manners you grew up with trying to claim the moral high ground....

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Youre the dimwit

Fallacy in Argument: Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person): This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

Name calling: atin-christ's moral high ground.

 

[inchrist]

Right back atcha -

War. 7. 1. 1
(1) Now, as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other such work to be done) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne, and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side.

He wanted to capture it, sure, but in the end: TITUS DESTROYED THE CITY AND THE SANCTUARY.

That is a fact.
And Titus and his ROMAN troops fulfilled the near-term prophecy in Daniel 9.

So what part of reading comprehension can you not grasp?
Oh yeah, that part that completely obliterates your false contention and contrivances.

Oh and "Oh'really"

Benson Commentary

A proverbial and figurative expression to denote an utter destruction; and the prophecy would have been amply fulfilled, if the city and temple had been utterly ruined, though every single stone had not been overturned. But it happened that the words were almost literally fulfilled: for after the temple was burned, Titus, the Roman general, ordered the very foundations of it to be dug up; after which the ground on which it stood was ploughed up by Turnus Rufus. It is true, Titus was very desirous of preserving it, and the city too, and sent Josephus and other Jews again and again to persuade them to a surrender, but one greater than Titus had determined it otherwise. The Jews themselves first set fire to the porticoes of the temple,

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

The Jews themselves first set fire to the porticoes of the temple,

This is silly. The Jews did not tear down the Temple by doing so.

Jesus NEVER "confirmed" any (there's more than one) OT Covenant at the beginning of His Ministry.
Jesus' Ministry did not last 3.5 years.
Jesus made the NEW Covenant on the eve of His Crucifixion.
He "cut the deal" -karat- when He shed His Blood on the Cross.
That Covenant did not expire in seven years.

 

[inchrist]

Fallacy in Argument: Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person): This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

Name calling: atin-christ's moral high ground.

Of cause youve been such an angel during this entire process so excuse me if I have no respect for you...you gave me no reason to respect you.