Search This Blog

Thursday, February 28, 2019

The Futility of Wasting Time Responding to DKP


The response Don K Preston gave to my last article is bizarre.

How is he going to redirect this time? How will he divert and manage to write 3000 words or more of ramblings this time and never answer the questions posed? Will, after 11,000 articles (exaggeration obviously) he ever answer the question posed to him in the first article?

Yet again... it is a big fat NOPE. My response is this article was a waste of my time.

Preston responds with no actual answer… Can it be called a response? I guess? But it's no answer.

As far as I’m concerned it’s another rabbit trail AS ALWAYS. This one however reeks of even more desperation; it’s a piss-poor rabbit trail. BREAKING NEWS: The rabbit's hole collapsed, caving in on itself. The rabbit is dead like Don K Preston's dreams of ever being an accepted, well-respected theologian in the eschatological field.

His latest article answers nothing and to tell you the truth, I’m not sure why he keeps bothering with it. This one is even more of a non-answer. I'm being kind when I say it is a joke and it’s not even close to April Fools yet.

If this is a convention where we are talking about black holes, he’s coming up on the stage and rambling on about an invisible elephant supposedly in the room with all of us.

That’s how incoherent and out there this article really was to me upon reading it.

After what was likely 10-15 pages in response to Preston, all he does is take the five times I mention the word “futility” and goes on an incoherent 5 page rabbit trail rambling rant as his response. 

You have got to be kidding! 

I, repeatedly in my articles answer him as point by point as I can usually and give many times more than 10 pages in response and he gives rabbit trail after rabbit trail never answering the questions posed and then accuses me of not doing exegesis ever which is a flat out lie. Quite frankly I am sick of his bold-faced lies and you, the reader, should be as well. 

If this is how Preston will continue doing responses I will not merit responses any longer as it is a waste of my time where I could be doing something way more important than Preston’s pathetic excuses for responses.
“[Conley] claimed that the ‘futility’ that Paul references has to do with material creation”…
Response: Duh.
“Now, the reader needs to note that Conley has offered not a word, so far, of any kind of exegetical response to my previous two articles- except to ridicule them. He claims that I lied in the previous article when I pointed out that he defines “corruption” in Romans 8:19f as the physical corruption of material existence. No, I did not lie. I pointed out that was his claim in Romans 8. That is the ONLY point that he made in reference to the word corruption in Romans 8. (Note: he has since reiterated that he believes that physical mortality and decay is the definition of corruption (from phthora) in Romans 8, demonstrating that he knows I did not lie).”
Preston continues to propogate a pathetic lie. I've shown quite clearly through many articles and videos on “Conley’s Blog”, Aaron Tyler and my “Evening Musings”, and “Hope Resurrected” that Preston is not just wrong but at this point is pathetically lying his socks off. It's pathetic how far a heretic will go to try and keep his book sales going; which by the way are awful books. At least get someone to edit them before putting them on Amazon to sell because his formatting skills are atrocious.
“I pointed out that he did not even mention the fact that the Greek word translated as corruption (phthora) is used in a great number of verses and contexts that have nothing to do with physical corruption”.
This goes back to the 1st article where he didn’t answer my points there and took one mention of phthora I gave and went on his first rabbit trail.

Instead of answering my points about pleroma, hettemma, and election and predestination the perpetual liar and rabbit trail master Preston rambles on about the word phthora that I mention ONCE! 

In my second response to Preston he rambles on that I didn't go deeper into that word. So I explain why. You can read my responses on Conley's Blog and Hope Resurrected. I've answered ad nauseum and don't have to repeat this anymore. All Preston proves is he's a bold faced liar. 

I repeatedly gave my reasons why I didn’t go deeper into that point. It was irrelevant to the main point in the 1st article I wrote. 

I even in later articles said that I could go into that word if necessary to do so but explained it was not the main point. 

Preston can’t seem to answer so he goes off on a rabbit trail about phthora. Pathetic. Then proceeds to continue going on rabbit trail after rabbit trail. It's becoming obvious why no serious scholar takes Preston seriously and I feel bad for Ed Stevens, a full preterist, who agreed to some form of debate with the guy.
“And he didn’t. I demonstrated exegetically that this word is used in a number of “resurrection” passages and yet, not one of those resurrection texts that mention phthora– not one of them – refers to physical corruption and morality”.
If this is the case what is the last article I wrote all about?

Another lie! Preston needs to quit lying to his readers and trying to poison the well. This is shameful.
“All Mr. Conley has done is to post repeatedly that my articles are “irrelevant” and prove nothing, and other insulting verbiage”.
I cannot lie. It is absolutely true that Preston’s articles ARE irrelevant and prove nothing. They are also garbage and his books should be used to feed your furnace or used to try and clean your dog's excrements when they have accidents on the floor. 

Preston mentions I insult him when he has done his fair share of insulting verbiage. I’ve repeatedly given him opportunity after opportunity to do a ceasefire where I would be more respectful if he would do so and he never takes them. 

Another note: I do try to be respectful. He is disrespectful and you cannot expect someone to just always take disrespectful verbiage from someone for years. I have given back insults before after Preston has repeatedly decided to insult myself, Aaron Tyler, William Vincent, etc… 

What else can I say? I’m loyal to my friends. Don't disrespect them, especially like you do constantly to Frost, and I won't throw back venom.
“So, per Mr. Conley, even though I examine, linguistically, exegetically, textually and contextually that his claims concerning “corruption” are specious and false, my arguments are irrelevant.”
He has done none of this. All he’s done is go on rabbit trails and ramble incoherently most of the time, never answering the actual questions or points raised… and his arguments ARE irrelevant.
“Well, we come now to discuss the “futility” that Paul says “creation” had been subjecteunwillingly”.
Because why not do another rabbit trail? Since we’ve already got like 10 of them now…
“It is worthwhile to note that in the previous article, I pointed out that Mr. Conley’s doctrine demands the future resurrection of every single living phyto-plankton, every living cell, every dead dog, cat, gerbil, elephant or hippo that has ever lived, died and decayed! After all, per Mr. Conley, they are part of the “creation” that he claims was subjected to futility, but, that will one day be delivered from that bondage of corruption and be manifested as “sons of God.”
I’ve answered this question… he can go re-read my article… which I have doubts he actually did or can read it. Maybe he needs to get his prescription checked on his glasses or something else is wrong? We here at Hope Resurrected strongly reccomend seeing doctors and having regular exams.
“On 2-16-19, on Facebook, I asked Mr. Conley, Sam Frost, Ken Palmer, William Vincent, Jeff Cunningham if any of them believed that there is to be a yet future physical resurrection of every living thing that has ever lived, died and decayed. The responses– if you want to call them that, are specious.”
I cannot speak for Palmer or Frost but I gave my answer. Preston’s answer is nothing more than neo-Gnostic drivel he pulled out of thin air.

He accuses me of giving unproven assertions, claims I offer no actual linguistic/exegetical proof and then rants about the Greek word metaiotees… It means futility. Preston agrees it means that. He claims I offer no support because I quote Romans 8:20. 

If I isogete Romans 8:20 I can or can’t claim lots of things hence why I don’t do isogesis. Romans 8:21 should be used with v.20.

Preston asks what Paul means in context by the words metaiotees and phthora. 

Aside from his rabbit trail with metaiotees now, I answered phthora in my last article. 

So, no, I offered quite a lot. Preston lies yet again as I’ve come to expect from him.

All he does next in the article is quote me and claim I don’t use exegesis.

Just because Preston claims I don’t exegete doesn’t make it true. It just makes him a liar.

Preston goes on a rant about the word meaningless… complete irony since he’s given a meaningless rant as a response to my article.

Romans 8:20-21 at the end of the day talks about Creation being freed from its bondage to decay. No amount of typing an incoherent rambling of psychobabble changes this.

Maybe instead of rambling on and on incoherently Preston should actually go back to the 1st article I read and actually answer the damn question instead of continuously lie to his readers.


My prescription for Don K Preston: I'm sorry you keep losing your fight with your own self-created eschatological nightmares. 

Recommendation: a hot shower, coffee, a binge watch of Netflix, throw all full preterist literature into the fireplace to get cozy, no more pathetic Morning Musings, fix your cars instead, read and learn Orthodox Christianity and its teachings instead of constantly eating your own barf and sniffing your own farts. 

In conclusion, Preston answered nothing. Responding to this article was a waste of my time. 

He can't answer objections to Romans 8 or Romans 11. This is clear.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Gospel of Mark Notes - Inroduction - Chapters 1-4

 Introduction - The Gospel of Mark is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Who is Mark? He's not one of the 12 Apostles. He has a...