Hey Dan,
Good luck to a fellow brother in the Diploma Factory. Good move. I always enjoyed your posts. Come back and visit.
Jim Whitney
Amazing1914
JoinedPosts by Amazing1914
-
44
The Big Goodbye
by SickofLies inthanks everyone for the support and help.
i've enjoyed doing my project and i'm proud of myself for doing it.
i've spent a ton of time here posting and getting to know everyone and its been fun.
-
-
-
-
-
-
23
NEWSFLASH!!!! CATHOLIC CHURCH OKS CONDOMS!!!!
by anewme ini just heard a brief report that the vatican has okd the use of condoms to prevent the spread of the hiv virus.
this is good news and a relief to many.
in light of the growing aids epidemic world wide this allowance is very compassionate on the part of the church.
-
-
Amazing1914
Well, it may take Rome forever to change, but at least they change. For Catholics, waiting on Jehovah just might have some meaning.
On the otherhand, the Orthodox never prohbited condoms in the first place.They leave matters of conscience alone.Jim Whitney
Correction: Because Orthodoxy is reluctant to get into areas of personal conscience, I confused current policy to apply to the historical position of the Orthodox Church on birth control. I made a mistake. My impression of Bishop Kallistos is that while he was a widely accepted authority, he did not speak for the entire Eastern Orthodox church. My impression of Orthodoxy is that they are reluctant to get into personal affairs of members. they are, but they have made some rulings at times, of which I was not aware. Here are some useful links:
One article stated,"Likewise, when it comes to birth control, we can see an obvious shift of moral ground in Bishop Kallistos’ views. Whereas in 1963, His Grace said that artificial contraception was forbidden in the Orthodox Church, he now remarks that "today a less strict view is coming to prevail" (p. 296). This is an area in which there really are differences of opinion even among Traditionalist Orthodox, and on which it is probably best to avoid making bold pronouncements. But it is manifestly unwise to challenge a widely accepted standard—that of clear opposition to the free use of contraceptives by Christian couples—with what is "trendy" or "is coming to prevail." This is not an Orthodox view of how the Church comes to guide its Faithful." Retreived from: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_toc.aspx
Then in another Orthodox discussion, I read the following:"At the end of his book, The Faith, among the books listed by Mr. Carlton in his recommended reading list(for the advanced reader) is, The Sacrament of Love, by Paul Evdokimov published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. In Evdokimov's section on birth control he quotes Father V. Palachkovsky: "'…In the opinion of the confessors, the entire domain of the relations between husband and wife is too intimate to provoke investigation by the priest… the latter not wishing to penetrate the intimacy where the unity of two in one flesh is accomplished and where the presence of a third is superfluous, even when invested with the priesthood and if only by his questions. (as quoted in The Sacrament of Love, pp. 175-176)'" Retreived from: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/frluke_newage.aspx
Jim Whitney
-
19
Do Satan and Jesus exist?
by Amazing1914 insince some seem perfectly at ease to depersonalize the holy spirit, and claim that any mention of the holy spirit as talking, or as "he, him, or his" are mere personifications, then this rule can be applied anywhere.. satan is not a real person.
the bible only makes him sound like one because the bible writers all use personification whenever they talk about satan.
why, because according to the arguments of some, wisdom is personified in proverbs, or the mountains cry out, or the trees laugh, that satan is not a person either.. but, but, but ... what about when jesus was tempted by satan in the wilderness?
-
-
Amazing1914
Thanks Little Toe,
You are the only one who truly understands me, satire, and parody.
Lovelylil,
Please don't take this little side track personally. I need to vent my other self once in a while.
Thanks,
Jim Whitney
-
19
Do Satan and Jesus exist?
by Amazing1914 insince some seem perfectly at ease to depersonalize the holy spirit, and claim that any mention of the holy spirit as talking, or as "he, him, or his" are mere personifications, then this rule can be applied anywhere.. satan is not a real person.
the bible only makes him sound like one because the bible writers all use personification whenever they talk about satan.
why, because according to the arguments of some, wisdom is personified in proverbs, or the mountains cry out, or the trees laugh, that satan is not a person either.. but, but, but ... what about when jesus was tempted by satan in the wilderness?
-
-
Amazing1914
Since some seem perfectly at ease to depersonalize the Holy Spirit, and claim that any mention of the Holy Spirit as talking, or as "he, him, or his" are mere personifications, then this rule can be applied anywhere.
Satan is not a real person. The Bible only makes him sound like one because the Bible writers all use personification whenever they talk about Satan. Why, because according to the arguments of some, Wisdom is personified in Proverbs, or the mountains cry out, or the trees laugh, that Satan is not a person either.
But, but, but ... what about when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness? Well, first of all the non-person called the Spirit or Holy Spirit led Jesus there, so it was likely just a personified experience ... but then when Jesus was tempted, it was merely the potential evil that we like to call Satan that was egging him on.
Nooooo ... a perfect man cannot be tempted by evil, so it must have been a real Satan. Yes, but the premise is that Satan is not a person because it says in Proverbs that Wisdom cried out and the Mountains sing, so Satan is just being personified. In order for Jesus to be tested, he must have at least had the potential to sin, and in order to have that potential, he must have at least felt some twinge in his human flesh. So, that little potential evil in us all, whether perfect or imperfect must be Satan. Yes, it all makes sense; because in Proverbs, Wisdom cries, mountains laugh, and tree whine ...
Of course, we have another problem. What? Well, there is this pesky issue that no secular historian ever mentions Jesus except Flavius Josephus in his two little comments in his volumnous writings ... and those two little mentionings were shown to likely be spurious. No, Jesus is the clever invention of rebellious Jews who wanted to get a new religion going ... and could not cut it at the Synagogue. So they were expelled as apostates and used Jesus name for their marketing image. Because, you see, Jesus is not a real person, but only a personification of a good man, who himself was only poeticly tested by a personified Satan, in a place where the personified Holy Spirit led him in a personified way.
Why can I say these things? Because in Proverbs it shows that Wisdom is personified because it cries out, the trees laugh, and the sea sings.
But how can Jesus have died for us is he is only a personification? Because we do not have souls, we are only said to have life. Our future lives are not here yet, so our current existence is fixed on dying. So, we live only figuratively, and our future lives are thus personified, because in a real sense we do not live. How can this be? Because in Proverbs is says that Wisdom cries out, the mountains laugh, and the trees blush.
But, then how can a figurative Jesus' figurative death really save us if we are already dead, or not alive yet? Because Adam and Eve are really only figurative people who figuratively sinned in a figurative garden, tempted by their inner evil by a personified Satan. How can this be? Because, it says in Proverbs that Wisdom laughs at you, trees sing rich melodies, and mountains belch ...
Well then, how can their figurative sin really count if they are only personified figurative people tempted by a personified Satan? Don't you get it yet, it is simple you see; in proverbs it says Widsom cries out ....
Jim Whitney
-
86
The Earliest Trinity Statements
by Amazing1914 in[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.
i am merely reporting history as i find it.
the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.
-
-
Amazing1914
Leolaia,
Excellent post again! Your arguments are solid and reflect a good knowledge of early Church writings.
Thanks again, Jim Whitney
-
86
The Earliest Trinity Statements
by Amazing1914 in[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.
i am merely reporting history as i find it.
the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.
-
-
Amazing1914
Inquirer,
Most of the things you said were untrue. How about reading my posts properly and see where I get my quotes from?
You failed to show how anything I posted was untrue. You failed to read my quotes which are directly from the early Church Fathers, and not from a secondary source. Your quotes come from the Watchtower, which used various sources. You did not read my initial post correctly, or you would not have posted such nonsense. The Watchtower only carefully selects quotes and makes claims which support their own position. They avoid those statements that do not support their position. In many cases, they are extremely untruthful. For example, they claim in the above Watchtower article that the Trinity was not developed until the 4th century. In reality, the full detailed definition was available by no later than 190 AD. This is important because they have a reason for the lie. Because if the JWs began to understand the history behind church teachings, and the early Church Fathers, then they will realize that the Trinity was defended from the beginning. No, the functional term "Trinity" was not used until 150 AD, but the concept was defended from the late first century.
You start being abusive when I try to give my thoughts on the matter? I don't like the tone in that post. You are starting to be abusive, so we'll just leave it there. PEACE OUT, alright?
You fail to demonstrate how I am being abusive. I teased you some because I found you to be humorous since you used a less than credible source, and you use the Watchtower, which is known for its dishonesty. I found it humorous, but evidently, you are a sensitive kind of guy, so I will withdraw from directing my humor at you. The only "tone" I expressed in writing is that of humor, and nothing else. All the rest of any "tones" are your private interpretations. Unless otherwise stated, as I have just done, written words to not express tones. The reader always reads into the words the tones that their own mind generates based on how they perceive what is written. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes not. You did not even try to address the excellent work posted by Leolaia. You are just using the "poor me, a victim" category, to avoid the tough issues presented to you by way of her rebuttal, and what you might suspect is coming from me when I get some more time by Thursday.
If you want to discuss things with me, then do so, but please use credible sources, and make some clear and logical arguments. Also, you really need not make these giant font posts, as they are hard to read, and waste paper and ink printing them out, and they look silly. Sorry if you find my comments abusive, but I am just expressing my opinion, and I have no ill feelings or desire to offend. However, when I am being offended, then I feel I have at least an equal right to say so.
Jim Whitney
-
86
The Earliest Trinity Statements
by Amazing1914 in[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.
i am merely reporting history as i find it.
the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.
-
-
Amazing1914
Inquirer,
You are funny. Now you are reduced to quoting from Wikipedia, an encyclopedia created online by people who submit information. It is not a credible work. In our university classes, our professors will go nuts if students quote from Wikipedia. Try doing some real research. The 1991-1992 Watchtowers patently lied about the development of the Trinity. Their Trinity brochure is a joke. As I said, I can't take much time wiht your stuff until after class Thursday. Besides, Leolaia did a much better job cleaning your clock, and you just don't know it yet. She did a great job, for example, showing that St. Ignatius, a student of the Apostle John, believed that Jesus is our God.
Jim Whitney
-
86
The Earliest Trinity Statements
by Amazing1914 in[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.
i am merely reporting history as i find it.
the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.
-
-
Amazing1914
Lovelylil,
I understand your arguments, but they are plausibilities which ignore the fact that the Holy Spirit spoke in first person. You can add all the ginger bread about how this is done with Apostles and prophets, but read Act 13:2 again, as you cut off the last part of the verse:
Lovelylil says: " ... Holy Spirit said "set apart Barnabas and Saul" for a certain work. " This is not conclusive proof because this information could have come from one of the Prophets, not necessarily from the mouth of the Holy Spirit.
Bible says, "And as the minitered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Separate me Barnabus and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them."
Your commentary lifted the text out of context, and left off the portion where the Holy Spirit says " ... I have called them." Yes, I know you were just making a point, but your point ignores the very clause that shows your argument to be in error: He, the Holy Spirit is talking in first person!
Various Bible translations, including the NWT uses quotations marks, thus showing someone speaking in first person. If we can't even discuss something in basic language, then we cannot have any kind of debate. You are doing nothing more than offering dance-around the Scripture explanations, and ignoring clear and solid language in the Bible. So, what is the point of offering Scriptual proof, when you will not accept what is written in the Bible? It is a pointless argument, isn't it?
I am not going to try and prove anything, because I learned a long time ago that people believe what they want to believe. All I am saying is that the Bible shows the Holy Spirit speaking on his own, about his own action. Thus, I fully met the condition of your challenge, and the case is closed.
Jim Whitney
-
86
The Earliest Trinity Statements
by Amazing1914 in[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.
i am merely reporting history as i find it.
the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.
-
-
Amazing1914
I edited my post, because it did not all show up. Read Acts 13:2, it is the Holy Spirit speaking in first person.
The other verse may involve other people, but the Holy Spirit is still the one being quoted. Even the Watchtower NWT had the sense to add quotation marks to quote the Holy Spirit.
Jim W.