Posts by Love

130

What does your user name here mean?

by LyinEyes in

jw
friends

i don't know what eles to call it , i guess it is the user name....lol.......so what does yours mean?.

i think awhile back i might have asked this,,,,,,,but it was way back and so many new ones here that i am just getting to know, and ones who came in here while i was not here as much.

there may be a thread on this in the last recent months, i am not sure,,,,if so, if there are any new ones who want to tell why they choose their user names,,,,,please do.. i will tell you why my name is lyineyes,,,,,many have asked me that here lately.

Love_Truth

Love_Truth:

Mulltiple Choice:

(1)- Likes Obstinate Vile Exchanges _ Terrifying Ridiculer Ultimately Trusting Himself

(2)- Loves Outdoors Vigorous Exercise_ Triumphant Rigorous Utilitarian Tested Hamiltonian

(3)- Love Truth

(4)- Likely Omniscient Victory Everyday_ Totally Right Undermining Tautologies Heartily

(5)- Love-Truth: The unique and most important fact about our world religions is that while the symbols differ and the "Mental-Truth" often appears to be in conflict with another "Mental-Truth," a great number of people in all religions (including the Atheist Religion and the Communist Religion) have found some positive factor in their symbols (perhaps a very tiny one) that has enabled them to find the ineffable mystery of a universal "Love-Truth." This Love-Truth is something of the spirit - something of the emotions - something beyond mental symbols (words, ritual, music, art) but realized and experienced through many of the symbols each person has come to accept through a spiritual interpretation of the symbol. While accepting them, the individual's feelings and experiences have modified them. To the Catholic who has found "Love-Truth", the symbol of the Mass will have been modified by his own feelings and experience till it is uniquely his own. Strangely, the Communist can do the same with the singing of the "International". If they have found "Love-Truth", both may experience through these conflicting symbols the same feelings - which one may call "Love of God" and the other "Love of man" or "rights of man". But the actual feeling - the experience, the attitude, the inspiration - is the same in each of them and will be reflected in some kindness or tenderness to their friends or neighbors.

Love_Truth- Cast yer vote.

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Donk,

Your "court of Law" reference is a good one. Circumstantial evidence is the best either side has today.

I'll continue "pleading my case" with all the circumstantial evidence available, Abaddon, Rem, and company will obviously do likewise.

In the end, I highly suspect no one's opinions will change fundamentally, but I'm always a sucker for a good debate. Whether an atheist is willing to admit or not (and many or even most, are) atheistic theories attempting to explain the origin of things are as much faith based as Theist's belief in a Creator.

Same evidence, different conclusions.

Much like Theist's constant debates over Trinity, or not.

Cheers,

Love-Truth

P.S.- You're not so bad for a donkey, dude.

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Donk,

If they're truly imaginary. God is not imaginary, but very real, as we shall see.

So the imaginary friend you referred to must be yours! Now, toilet tissue (donkey=ass?) isn't imaginary, so you must be talking about your split personality again! Wait, your split personality is a confirmed fact, so you'll need to discuss your imaginary friend with your psycholgist!

Cheers,

Love_Truth

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Donkey,

I wont debate you, then. You can continue debating amongst your split personalities.

Cheers,

Love_Truth

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Donkey,

For now, the answer is yes. Follow along and perhaps you'll understand why.

Cheers,

Love_Truth.

348

God does exist...

by czarofmischief in

jw
friends

earlier a thread emerged, as they do so often, on whether or not god existed.

i stated that he does, unequivocally and without doubt.

i refused to preface the statement with the phrase "i believe".

Love_Truth

Rem and Abaddon,

I of course will reply to both of your posts. But meanwhile, I wonder if you realize that on the one hand, you call on others to be "subject matter experts", and berate those who have differing views, while on the otherhand, you believe your opinions, and the opinions of your hand-selected "subject matter experts" superior. Tyranny of Authority? Perhaps. I've already stated my background somewhat, and I obviously see nothing wrong with an Engineer or Physicist ripping any theory to shreds, we're quite good at analysis. I believe in letting arguments be judged on their merit. You've yet to prove evolution is anything more than a silly, wishful, pipe dream.

Do you really want me to go back to punch by punch (you said this, here's my retort) dissection of your so-called "refutations? You've refuted nothing thus far. You simply hold a different opinion. And that opinion is on shaky foundation, or no foundation at all. But I'll get to that later, in my response. Nonetheless, it appears you're (Abaddon, at least) suggesting you like that format better. I did address all of your issues in my last post, but for the sake of keeping the reply as short as possible, I left out your original quotes.

I'll see if I can compose a post that keys to your original points in a more forthright manner, then.

Love_Truth- loves tearing the ridiculously silly religion of evolution and other atheist "how did that happen" theories to shreds! This be fun!

51

Heb. 1:6 (even in the NWT !) shows Jesus not to be an angel, but Jehovah

by hooberus in

for the sake of argument lets assume that the current nwt is correct in rendering proskuneo as "obesiance" .

"but when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'and let all god's angels do obeisance to him" hebrews 1:6 the new world translation.. 1. if all (as in 100%) of the angels of god do obeisance to him, then he could not be an angel.

all (as in 100%) must include michael.

Love_Truth

Ozziepost,

They indeed are all false Gods, but not all are false gods. There is a distinction:

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[ 10:34 Psalm 82:6] ?
(Whole Chapter: John 10 In context: John 10:33-35)

John 10:35
If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came?and the Scripture cannot be broken?
(Whole Chapter: John 10 In context: John 10:34-36)

Acts 17:18
A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
(Whole Chapter: Acts 17 In context: Acts 17:17-19)

1 Corinthians 8:5
For even if there are socalled gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),
(Whole Chapter: 1 Corinthians 8 In context: 1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

Now, now- we can argue about the definition of "false", eh? My point is that the one true god is God (YHWH), and that even Scripture acknowledges other gods. hooberus, That Christ became a man is without dispute. That he rose a spirit is also without dispute. You are clearly going beyond what is written in your interpretation, as I have pointed out both that: As a Trinitatrian, you will argue that Christ arose to heaven in the flesh, and still has that corruptible flesh, which according to 1 Corinthians 15:50:"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.", this has clearly never been the case. And that it is possible, and happened, that Christ was a spirit, a fleshly man, and again, a spirit. Cheers, Love_Truth

51

Heb. 1:6 (even in the NWT !) shows Jesus not to be an angel, but Jehovah

by hooberus in

for the sake of argument lets assume that the current nwt is correct in rendering proskuneo as "obesiance" .

"but when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'and let all god's angels do obeisance to him" hebrews 1:6 the new world translation.. 1. if all (as in 100%) of the angels of god do obeisance to him, then he could not be an angel.

all (as in 100%) must include michael.

Love_Truth

hooberus,

Yes, I know that. I included my original quotation for clarity, (or so I thought).

Ozziepost,

Call it what you will, the Scriptures indicate that there are many "gods"(mentioned 238 times), but only one God:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?search=gods&SearchType=AND&version=NIV&restrict=&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&rpp=25&language=english&searchpage=0

51

Heb. 1:6 (even in the NWT !) shows Jesus not to be an angel, but Jehovah

by hooberus in

for the sake of argument lets assume that the current nwt is correct in rendering proskuneo as "obesiance" .

"but when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'and let all god's angels do obeisance to him" hebrews 1:6 the new world translation.. 1. if all (as in 100%) of the angels of god do obeisance to him, then he could not be an angel.

all (as in 100%) must include michael.

Love_Truth

Hooberus,

Sorry, I just can't let that go.

Your comments in yellow highlight. I posted this Scripture:

1 Corinthians 15:20-28: 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." [3] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

1 Corinthians 15:27 is talking about God putting all things under the man Jesus Christ's feet, not the feet of an angel (as in spirit creature).

As I said earlier, I knew this would happen, that is, it comes down to you believing Trinitarianism and me believing The Father(YHWH) is God, and Jesus Christ is His Firstborn Son, not God, but second to God, so a god. Although there is voluminous proof regarding the seperate and distinct nature of Jesus, the Son, and God, YHWH, the Father, let's dissect 1 Corinthians 15:23-28:

23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

This establishes an order in reference of things completed, and things yet to come: "when he comes, those who belong to him", as in "Second Coming".

24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

Again, a future time, as he has not yet handed "over the kingdom to God the Father", nor has he yet "destroyed all dominion, authority, and power."

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Italics mine)

Again, he reigns until a future time.

26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." [1] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

So, by the order of events, Christ is now in heaven, no longer in the form of fleshly man. Clearly, God(YHWH) is superior to Christ, as God is never subject to Jesus, yet Jesus is subject to God. Also, it is God alone who has the power and authority to put everything (excluding God Himself, YHWH) under Christ, not Christ himself who has this power.

28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

So, in the future, when this Scripture is accomplished, Christ having fulfilled it, God will once again take charge.

As a Trinitatrian, you will argue that Christ arose to heaven in the flesh, and still has that corruptible flesh, which according to 1 Corinthians 15:50:"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.", this has clearly never been the case.

This Trinity debate has been going on since 300 years after Christ's resurrection. We're not going to "solve it" here, and it's already been covered thoroughly in other threads on this board.

So, as I stated earlier, IMO, it matters not, for Salvation's sake, believe what you will regarding Christ's nature. I can see no way, without twisting Scripture, to believe in a Trinity. It would have been taught explicitly in Scripture, were that the case. The Holy Sprit is God's spirit that comes upon his chosen people, not a personage, or form, of God.

I'll do my best to attempt to stay out of this thread from now on- I can understand folks defining "Angel" differently, and some folks, like FIL, trying to put words in my mouth that I never stated, 'tis human. But I just couldn't hold back from responding to at least that Scripture.

Christian love to you,

Love_Truth- Carry on, then.

51

Heb. 1:6 (even in the NWT !) shows Jesus not to be an angel, but Jehovah

by hooberus in

for the sake of argument lets assume that the current nwt is correct in rendering proskuneo as "obesiance" .

"but when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'and let all god's angels do obeisance to him" hebrews 1:6 the new world translation.. 1. if all (as in 100%) of the angels of god do obeisance to him, then he could not be an angel.

all (as in 100%) must include michael.

Love_Truth

Posts by Love_Truth