Posts by Shining One

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

"Very well said, jgnat"

She denies the scripture that is the BASIS for Jgnat's claimed belief in Jesus and you say, "very well said, jgnat"? She claims that the 'references to Christ' are okay but if you go by those teachings you are 'worshipping a book'! LOL
Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

This is from the C.M.A. Canada Statement of faith. It looks to me like you deny the beliefs of your own clergy! How much do you want to bet that you deny the faith of the Nazarenes as well, eh Gnat?

4. The Old and New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of people. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice.11

5. Humankind, originally created in the image and likeness of God,12 fell through disobedience, incurring thereby both physical and spiritual death. All people are born with a sinful nature, are separated from the life of God, and can be saved only through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ.13 The destiny of the impenitent and unbelieving is existence forever in conscious torment, but that of the believer is everlasting joy and bliss.14

6. Salvation has been provided only through Jesus Christ. Those who repent and believe in Him are united with Christ through the Holy Spirit and are thereby regenerated (born again), justified, sanctified and granted the gift of eternal life as adopted children of God.15

7. It is the will of God that in union with Christ each believer should be sanctified thoroughly16 thereby being separated from sin and the world and fully dedicated to God, receiving power for holy living and sacrificial and effective service toward the completion of Christ's commission.

Talk about dishonesty! You pretend to 'teach' us how Christians should behave, then you deny the very basis for the beliefs that you claim to have! Take a look at point 4. LOL
Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

For Narkisos,

You have attempted a thread hijack and of course, since you favor Jgnat she will embrace it. I will then answer it. Here is a portion of AlanF argument from the thread you linked:

>I finally referred to the poetical dialogues of Job, where (as I read it) Job accuses God of being a tyrant and his friends try to defend God and bring Job into submission. Chapter 13 (Job talking) is especially strong in this regard. AlanF quoted it as follows: Are you defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments?

AlanF claims to have the authority to judge whether an argument is dishonest or not. He does not have that authority, he has a philosophical point based on presuppositions that he has accepted. I do not accept his presuppositions. I do not ascribe to his ‘accepted scholarship’, appeal to authority.

>You should be impartial witnesses, but will you slant your testimony in his favor?

This is an unproven accusation. It is typical of Alan’s tactics. He always attempts to shame others into silence.

>Will you argue God’s case for him? Be careful that he doesn’t find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool him as easily as you fool people?

Meaningless rhetoric and it does smell 'fishy', lol.

>No, you will be in serious trouble with him if even in your hearts you slant your testimony in his favor. Doesn’t his majesty strike terror into your heart? Does not your fear of him seize you? Your statements have about as much value as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot. (Job 13:7-12; New Living Translation)

When you are engaging in rhetoric it is always good to add more and more manure to the pile. Jgnat likes to do that with her 'smoke screen'.

>The issue of apologetics (or, more specifically, theodicy = justifying God) divides Christians from the very beginnings down to the present

Is there such a thing as ‘theodicy’, LOL? Apologetics focused upon heresies and those who attempted to subvert the faith until the so-called ‘age of enlightenment’ when secularists who claimed to be Christian dishonestly denied the Christian doctrines while retaining their clerical collars. Those are the ones who needed “his majesty to strike terror into their hearts”.

>(think of Karl Barth, who insisted on preaching the Gospel without trying to defend it,

Irrelevant to the issue. Barth was another liberal theologian who decided to 'throw in the towel' and deny Christianity a defense.

>Is the Christian faith as a whole something to be defended on rational grounds? Or is it a "special grace", an esoterical teaching, which only some are effectively called to believe? What do you think and why?

Naturalists start their reasoning with the contention that, 'no supernatural events have ever happened'. On that basis they attempt to deny the eyewitness testimony that is the main evidence in favor of the life and death of Christ! "no supernatural has ever happened therefore there is no supernatural'! LOL
Christianity can indeed be defended (and is) on rational grounds. It is not a ‘either/or’ proposition. (The issue of faith is separate to a point. Faith, like logic and reasoning ability is transcendent.) This is like the secularists contention that ‘religion’ cannot speak to the science of the matter. Christians have every reason to defend what the faith (and are told to do so in scripture). Both apologists against secularism and secularists claim that there is 'good science' and 'bad science'. Alan F and others would have us believe that simply because some are ‘called’ to faith, there is no reasoning involved. That is an absurd contention!
Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

HI Terry,

Here is a partial quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

3. The formation of the Tetramorph, or Fourfold Gospel

Irenæus, in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), testifies to the existence of a Tetramorph, or Quadriform Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one Spirit; to repudiate this Gospel or any part of it, as did the Alogi and Marcionites, was to sin against revelation and the Spirit of God. The saintly Doctor of Lyons explicitly states the names of the four Elements of this Gospel, and repeatedly cites all the Evangelists in a manner parallel to his citations from the Old Testament. From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century. Proofs might be multiplied that our canonical Gospels were then universally recognized in the Church, to the exclusion of any pretended Evangels. The magisterial statement of Irenæus may be corroborated by the very ancient catalogue known as the Muratorian Canon, and St. Hippolytus, representing Roman tradition; by Tertullian in Africa, by Clement in Alexandria; the works of the Gnostic Valentinus, and the Syrian Tatian's Diatessaron, a blending together of the Evangelists' writings, presuppose the authority enjoyed by the fourfold Gospel towards the middle of the second century. To this period or a little earlier belongs the pseduo-Clementine epistle in which we find, for the first time after II Peter, iii, 16, the word Scripture applied to a New Testament book. But it is needless in the present article to array the full force of these and other witnesses, since even rationalistic scholars like Harnack admit the canonicity of the quadriform Gospel between the years 140-175.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

I wanted to at least partially answer since the sacred Canon could be an issue, but I am basically done with Jgnat. There is little to be gained by playing verbal 'ping pong' with her. This article goes into much detail and is a readily available resource. I have never seen any argument that leads me to dismiss the canon as 'uninspired and arbitrary'. I believe that on the basis of the evidence we have the actual inspired Word of God. I believe that we continue to gain valuable insight as research is done but there is no further revelation of divine truth. I have seen the results of prayer, the miracles of healing and salvation and have no doubt that the Lord is 'walking with' me daily.
St. Augustine said this, "Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand."
Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

Here is an initial link for you Terry, I will try to find time later on to get more detail for you.

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTARO12.htm

Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

Jgnat,

Dfed has you pegged:
>Shining one you will find that they do that a lot. ..especially Jgnat. Talking with her is like dancing ballerina style....you keep going round and round and round.................
You are either clueless or delusional. Those who see reason (and admit it), can see that your faith is built on the 'shifting sands' of relativism. When you used the word, 'inclusive' that just confirmed that you are a 'salt water' Christian with one notable addition: you are not just 'lukewarm', you attempt to teach a false Christ and that makes you a danger to anyone truly seeking after salvation.

Please tell us of what denomination you are and if they teach the same things you spout here. Let me guess, Anglican? Maybe you are a renegade Catholic? Or maybe one of those U.C.C who claim to be so 'inclusive'? I am sure you will have the 'last word' so go ahead. I don't feel like wasting my time playing verbal 'ping pong'.
Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

Terry,
You are hijacking the thread. I am asking Jgnat some very specific questions. You assume that I have to answer your assertions to continue my argument. What you said at the beginning of your own message applies to you as well:

"When you begin building an argument on your own presuppositions you will always arrive at the answers you seek."

Your own belief system was eroded and comprised by facts that you learned thorugh various means of research. I believe that you (and many who are on here) kept the axiom that "all Churches are false", that was drilled into you by the WBTS. I'm not just 'blowing off' your well thought out post. I have looked at the same issues in the past and settled them to my satisfaction. I have also sifted the evidence that only one who has a personal relationship with the risen Lord can know. Yes, I know that is entirely subjective to you and many others here. I can do nothing that would convince you in any way, shape or form.

Jgnat is evasive and clueless. Her future 'debate' with agnostics/atheists will be strictly 'claimed believer' versus non-believer. It would be much along the lines of a 'Bishop Spong vs Barry Lynn', (ACLU pres and Unitarian). It will be interesting but won't accomplish much.
Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

Hey Tetly,
I see that you and Gnat are both from Canada. That's just a bigger, emptier version of western Europe, right? Are YOu two seeing each other or is she actually a 'troll' of you, the female side of your own personality? LOL
Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

Jesus rejected no portion of scripture, He fulfilled it. He rejected the pharisee's and scribes' wild interpretations of the law. Didn't you learn anything as a JW, Tetly?
Rex

151

Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One in

jgnat, .

you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

here are my answers to your charges.

Shining One

Hello Iggie,

You said:
>My foundation is the ROCK, CHRIST. I use the bible as a guide, but it is smaller than CHRIST and not to be worshipped. Any instruction in the bible must first pass the Law of Love test. OSO, you DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION to redraw my diagram, as I speak best for my own perception.

No, you are already 'redrawn' by your own reasoning. The 'Law of Love' is for us and does not overule any of God's attributes. God is love! It doesn't end there. God is holy, mercy, grace, wisdom, joy, peace, wrath, vengeance, anger, jealousy and the list goes on. Each emotion that we have is ever perfected and magnified in the Godhead. I am pointing out the contextual pillaging that you are guilty of.

>Now, how do we use the diagrams? Those who would challenge our beliefs will naturally attack the foundation. All an athiest/agnostic has to do to challenge OSO's beliefs is attack the bible.

The Bible is the basis for all known truth about God in the FIRST PLACE. Without it, you have no solid foundation to begin with. You have no 'law of love', no 'law and the prophets', no Jesus! You do not have the authority to question the infallibility of scripture. You are putting yourself on the throne and standing in judgment of God. The Bible is a weapon, not a defense!

>We can also challenge our own beliefs, to make sure they stand up to scrutiny. For instance, how different would be the result be for a parent who asks, "Should I shun my child for sin?" On JGnat Foundation vs O-Shinning-One Foundation?

There you go again, you cannot place JWs in the category of Christianity, they are in the category of 'cult'.

>As before, I'll reply to specifics later.

The specific has been layed before you again and again. You do not answer except in arrogance and the wild notion that you are somehow too clever for me. You are refusing to be honest and admit that your Jesus is one that you have made up.
Rex