Mary there are so many errors in your post but I don't have the time to correct them all. I'll just say a few things. Don't ever let a theologian or any serious bible student hear say Sheol is a prison for spirits, you will get laughed off the first of the earth. You are the first person I EVER heard make such a claim. ALL Jews, theologians, and most Christians agree that Sheol simply means grave. I also like how you take 1 Peter 3:19 out of context by not quoting the following verse "19through whomalso he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built." In Peter's next letter he makes it clear as to what spirits in Noah's days he was talking about. 2 Peter 4:"4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to Tartarus, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;" It's obvious you know very little about the Bible, such as the difference between Sheol and Tartarus, but I won't hold that against you because you don't believe in the Bible, it's those who applauded your post as if anything you said made sense who should be the ones who are ashamed of themselves because they know very little of the book they claim to live by.
Blue Grass
JoinedPosts by Blue Grass
-
114
Immortal Soul? Impossible!
by wannabe inimpossible!.
we notice, paul tells us that two things were handed down, to all mankind through the process of inheritance.
the reason being, if the soul was to be immortal, adam himself would have had to pass that on to mankind.
-
-
-
114
Immortal Soul? Impossible!
by wannabe inimpossible!.
we notice, paul tells us that two things were handed down, to all mankind through the process of inheritance.
the reason being, if the soul was to be immortal, adam himself would have had to pass that on to mankind.
-
-
Blue Grass
Isaacaustin says "It goes back to God, while the soul goes to hell or heaven, awaiting a reuniting with body and spirit...or to the final destination of gehenna with the spirit remaining with Gid."
Wow! Where did you read all of that? Can you show what part of the Quran you got that from?
Leolaia says "Too bad that Revelation refers to the "souls" (Greek psukhés) of the dead in heaven (6:9-11)."
Most theologians and serious Bible student agree that the book of revelation isn't inspired but even assuming that it is one would just say it's using symbolic language there.
-
62
ONE! NO EQUAL!
by wannabe inbut he still wasn't finished, to my surprise, and i'd thought he was, with his last comment.
i thought!
i thought!
-
-
Blue Grass
BurnTheShips says " I am grateful to Franz, his writings helped me leave. I think he is sincere and thoughtful. I think it took real courage and conviction to try to change things in the Watchtower, and he paid a high price for it. That said, I don't necessarily see everything the same way he does, and I am sure he would agree that I have freedom of conscience."
It sounds like you are confusing Fred Franz with Ray Franz.
-
62
ONE! NO EQUAL!
by wannabe inbut he still wasn't finished, to my surprise, and i'd thought he was, with his last comment.
i thought!
i thought!
-
-
Blue Grass
I find it amusing that the 3 individuals(jonathan dough,isaacaustin, and BurhTheShips) who are zealously defending this ridiculous doctrine don't even agree with each other on the definition of the doctrine.
-
62
ONE! NO EQUAL!
by wannabe inbut he still wasn't finished, to my surprise, and i'd thought he was, with his last comment.
i thought!
i thought!
-
-
Blue Grass
Isaacaustin you just contradicted yourself. According to the Jesus Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob who Jesus also said is his father. So you are saying the true God(Yahweh) manifested himself as the Son(Jesus), the holy spirit, and the Father(Yahweh). You're saying Yahweh manifested himself as Yahweh.
-
62
ONE! NO EQUAL!
by wannabe inbut he still wasn't finished, to my surprise, and i'd thought he was, with his last comment.
i thought!
i thought!
-
-
Blue Grass
BurnTheShips says "The Bible isn't the Word of God...We have a Word of God, and it isn't a book. It is the living Christ. That's the true Word, not the Bible. The church that Christ founded and infused with the holy spirit is the body of Christ, even if scattered around the Earth and existing in a partial state of separation like it is today. We aren't a religion of a mute book, but a religion of the Living Word."
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
I have no idea where you got the idea of the Bible not being the word of God from or that it's a "mute book". Also I would like to know what is this church today that's infused with so much holy spirit that we should listen to them rather than the Bible.(Didn't Fred Franz say something like that before)
-
62
ONE! NO EQUAL!
by wannabe inbut he still wasn't finished, to my surprise, and i'd thought he was, with his last comment.
i thought!
i thought!
-
-
Blue Grass
isaacaustin says "There is one true god, who is manifest in 3 persons. Those three persons operation is as one god due to their perfect unity."
Who is this one true God? If the father, son, and holy spirit are just manifestations, who is the God manifesting himself and does he have a name or does he ever speak in the Bible?
leavingWT says "It may seem like a huge bother, but those audio recording will actually make it very simple and memorable for you. They really helped me to deconstruct the WT strawman explanation. The speaker has designed this sermon with a JW audience specifically in mind. So, rather than trying to describe the doctrine to a non-believer, his explanation is catered to the person who currently has the WT view in mind."
LeavingWT I literally had 100s of discussions about of the trinity long before I talked to any witnesses so I can assure you that recording won't tell me anything I didn't already know.
-
62
ONE! NO EQUAL!
by wannabe inbut he still wasn't finished, to my surprise, and i'd thought he was, with his last comment.
i thought!
i thought!
-
-
Blue Grass
Educate yourself, first, because you're putting your foot in your mouth. Read this for a detailed explanation.
http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html
How about showing me a detailed explanation from the Bible. My days of receiving doctrines from imperfect men rather than the Bible are over. Apparently you learned nothing from your experience as a JW.
-
62
ONE! NO EQUAL!
by wannabe inbut he still wasn't finished, to my surprise, and i'd thought he was, with his last comment.
i thought!
i thought!
-
-
Blue Grass
LeavingWT I know exactly what the definition of the trinity doctrine is as I use to believe in it and defend it myself. The fact that in order to explain the definition you have to go to a source outside the Bible to only proves my point.
-
-
-
Blue Grass
OK moshe, it's obvious your not playing with a full deck so let me explain to you why you're an idiot. The title of your thread suggest that preventing the death of people in a natural disaster may not be a good thing. Also you open up with your ridiculous post and state inconvenience of people living in your neighborhood or home as an excuse for letting them die. And of course you try the age old trick of saying you were asking this question not of yourself but if OTHER people would rather have people die in a natural disaster. YOU were the one who starting this thread, YOU were the one who made an attempt to justify the logic of not warning people of a natural duster therefore YOU are the one who will be treated as an asshole/monster. Also comparing the loss of money to the loss of human life says a lot about your character, or lack there of. Also Moshe I can't help but notice all the racial undertones to your statements. Basically what your thread title is saying is "Are 'black' people from a third world country worth saving?". The last sentence of your opening post says it all : "Of course, they(black people) would be camped at your (white)home for a long time". I loved the way you used "they" being camped at "your home" as a reason to not warn them of a natural disaster. You are such an ASS!