>How depressing to see the "shining ass" succeed in hijacking what otherwise would have been an interesting discussion. Rex, please re-insert your head into your colon and allow the thread to proceed with the original question.
I see you are up to your usual level of intelligent argument.
Rex
Shining One
JoinedPosts by Shining One
-
39
Perfect, Nearly Perfect, and Mostly Perfect....Religion
by jgnat inkero-kero's goodbye post brought me to mind a common complaint amongst jw apologists, that all we do is bring up the bad stuff and old history.
after all, "nobody's perfect".
well, that would be fine and dandy if the wtbts hadn't set themselves up as the sole mouthpiece for jehovah in these 'last days'.
-
-
Shining One
-
39
Perfect, Nearly Perfect, and Mostly Perfect....Religion
by jgnat inkero-kero's goodbye post brought me to mind a common complaint amongst jw apologists, that all we do is bring up the bad stuff and old history.
after all, "nobody's perfect".
well, that would be fine and dandy if the wtbts hadn't set themselves up as the sole mouthpiece for jehovah in these 'last days'.
-
-
Shining One
>Mr.Pot, meet Mrs. Kettle. Whenever people state their beliefs/interpretations as the only right way they are setting themselves up as judge.
Yes, I know that fundamentalists are characterized as you seem to believe. Too bad for you. You've got it wrong. When I state my belief of a particular text is 'correct', backed up by the context of the passage and the invaluable insights of reliable Bible translators, that is a truth. I don't have to go back and chip away or undermine what has already been settled.That is the 'black and white of it'!
> What I really want to know, even if you reply to nothing else, is how your qualifications are superior to hers?
The Bible is the word of God. That is the first axiom that has been settled in my mind. My qualifications as opposed to hers are irrelevant. You can study and analyze text using proven methods. A text out of context is a pretext. When one denies the foundation in part then where does it stop? Isn't there a 'slippery slope' that we put ourselves on when we deny the foundation? Are you really arguing against the use of Biblical text to clarify other texts? Are you really arguing against the life work of some of the most intelligent Christian's to ever live? I back up my interpretations with that of the most proven, reliable translators to ever live. If I look at a text and come up with some 'off the wall' idea that none have ever come up with before then I am on shaky ground indeed!
I could also go on about my belief in the reality of the life of Christ and the assurance of Him living in me but that goes off into personal and incidental proof. It is, in reality, the most important truth of all.
Rex -
55
For Sh***ing One - Do I represent Christ Properly?
by jgnat inme: s***ing one: where have i complained about scripture?
he: then you have now changed your mind and believe that all scripture is inspired?
me: as others have already helpfully pointed out, questioning and complaining are completely different.
-
-
Shining One
>Me: I ascribe to Orthodox Christianity as outlined in the Nicene Creed. Now, THAT I consider Christian doctrine. None of the statements above, some which I agree I have criticized, are part of the Nicene Creed.
You would rather use semantics to deny that you are complaining and compromising. You are a compromiser who has no Biblical foundation except your own idea of 'the law of love'. You belittle the very gospel when you compromise on the principles and precepts of valid doctrine. You belittle the saving power of the gospel by denying that a person headed for hell (deathbed) can be brought to salvation by the Lord, using one bold enough to share His word. If you deny that Jesus Christ is the one way to God (and I am not sure that you do) for whatever reason, you are compromising His message to the world. You are in a popularity contest. You tickle the 'itching ears' with your compromise and rob the gospel of it's very power to save.
>Me: I think Little Toe said it best. I say the Word is different than the word. Prove me otherwise.
More semantics and the 'merry go round' begins again......
Rex -
39
The Bible. Despite many reasons to dismiss it why do so many believe?
by nicolaou ina man cannot walk on water, truly dead people do not come back to life and 1 + 1 will never equal 3. these are just a few of the absurd impossibilities that one must swallow and accept in order to 'believe' the bible.. why does the belief that the bible is 'truth' persist?.
men cannot survive a fiery furnace unscathed, the sun cannot stand still in the sky and donkeys cannot speak hebrew.
unless you believe the bible.
-
-
Shining One
"Do not seek to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand." Saint Augustine
>A man cannot walk on water, truly dead people do not come back to life and 1 + 1 will never equal 3.
Three assumptions and only one is correct and provable.
>These are just a few of the absurd impossibilities that one must swallow and accept in order to 'believe' the Bible.
Poison the well by calling the miraculous events 'absurd'. It is absurd that thinking human beings can see the wonders of creation and yet say there is no evidence for God's existence. My perspective and it is as valid as yours. In fact, your assumptions in the material world require more faith than do my beliefs.
>Why does the belief that the Bible is 'truth' persist?
Why is the material world the only thing that you admit can exist?
>Men cannot survive a fiery furnace unscathed, the sun cannot stand still in the sky and donkeys cannot speak Hebrew. Unless you believe the Bible.
You make assumptions that require faith and evidence to believe. Yet you yourself do not recognize that you are doing what the believer in God does.
Rex -
23
TRUE CHRISTIANS must imitate JESUS the "apostate"
by Terry ina simple premise for your consideration .
is a christian required to be a footstep follower of jesus?.
are true christians required to imitate jesus' behavior and state of mind as closely as humanly possible?.
-
-
Shining One
No simple premise here, Terry. Your assumptions are simplistic though.
>Is a Christian required to be a footstep follower of Jesus? Yes.
A Christian is admonished to live a life befitting their savior. Once one has truly accepted Him and the Holy Spirit resides within him/her they are now free to choose between behaviors. This is a process: we are justified by the imputation of Christ's sacrifice paying our account in full. Sanctification is the life long process that a Christian goes through until they leave this world.
>Are true Christians required to imitate Jesus' behavior and state of mind as closely as humanly possible? Yes.
>Was Jesus a person who quietly followed the authorities in his religion of Judaism, or; did Jesus engage in discussion debate and controversy with them?
He did indeed call them on their inequities and hypocrisy.
>Jesus was engaged in active debate with those Authorities whom Jehovah had placed in their positions as teachers, leaders and administrators of His word and His law. Why would it be any different for Christians today? In Early Christianity the strongest and most notable feature of faith was seen in the following behavior.
>1.Jesus constantly argued, questioned and debated with Authorities of his own religion'
He is the Christ. He is God.
2.Jesus constantly argued, questioned and debated his own disciples and apostles.
Not at all. He taught them and discipled them. They went from the status to servants to that of friends.
>3.Jesus was more interested in "why" than "what". Religious authority was more interested in conformity to their power and position.
>4.The early feature of Christianity was the arguments and debates over who and what Jesus was as well as what true teaching was.
Incorrect again. The earliest of Christians worshipped Jesus. Some of the pastoral letters were already in circulation before the end of the decade that Jesus died and rose again. The rest of the pastoral letters and gospels were well circulated before the decimation of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. Paul and the rest of the apostles spoke from the same authority and the Church did not have to explain doctrine until the heretics started to question the doctrines.
>A. Jews under law vs. Christians freed from law and under the authority of a spirit-led conscience. B.Christian vs Christian over whether Gentiles should be included. C.Christian vs Christian over circumcision and dietary observances
Orignal disputes as Christianity separated itself from Judaism.
>Constantine's era of Roman Empire as Christian was an endless series of debates, arguments and tussles over what true doctrine was down to the smallest defintions of words.
And this was only necessary because of the small number of but influential heretics who pushed the issue, mainly the gnostics on one side and the docetics on the other. I believe that your view of Christian history is warped by your apparent acceptance of the most liberal of scholars.
Rex -
41
What Things Were You Shocked To Find Out About, While In The Org.
by Warlock inthese are just 3 things that i was shocked to learn when i was in the org.
they may not seem like big things to some, but they are to me.. 1. speakers at the d.a.
had food catered to them.
-
-
Shining One
Hey Pete,
Why is it okay to be a bigot about the old WBTS but not about Islam? Whose teachings have killed more innocents? At least with the JWs the armageddon teaching is imaginary and no one blows up bus loads of children and others to get there!
Rex -
39
Perfect, Nearly Perfect, and Mostly Perfect....Religion
by jgnat inkero-kero's goodbye post brought me to mind a common complaint amongst jw apologists, that all we do is bring up the bad stuff and old history.
after all, "nobody's perfect".
well, that would be fine and dandy if the wtbts hadn't set themselves up as the sole mouthpiece for jehovah in these 'last days'.
-
-
Shining One
>On the other hand, I do think it is my Christian duty to regularly examine my foundation, to be sure of what is true. To take a good look in the mirror, so to speak.
The mirror is God's word, just as it says in James. You question God's word and thereby set yourself up as your own god. You have already compromised when you accept the worldview of those who are in opposition to the gospel message. What you are supposed to examine is your view in light of scripture, not scripture in light of the world's guidelines.
>By way of illustration there’s been several threads about the “Ugly American” on the board recently. Some tourists, out of ignorance, don’t represent their nation as well as we would like. Why are they so unaware? Is it because, believing their nation to be the best, they didn’t bother to learn and observe in the country they were visiting? As painful as it might be to admit, we also have the “Ugly Christian”. They blithely bumble in to social situations, assuming that most of the people they are speaking to are condemned to hell. Unless the humble listeners accept their message, of course. This is highly offensive to most people. Does that mean that all Christians and all Americans are ugly, bumbling, arrogant, and ignorant? OF COURSE NOT.
It does mean that a lot of alleged Christians compromise the very gospel in order to be popular with the present worldview. The gospel message is an offence because it confronts people with their own sin and pride. They are offended at the idea that a Jewish mystic from 2000 years ago bled and died, then rose again. Proclaiming Himself as the one true way to God. Scripture is very clear and when you hide the message to make it more 'tolerant' or 'agreeable' you rob the message of it's saving power. Even in your explanation you seek to poison the well and use a strawman by describing people who share the gospel as 'bumbling, ugly and arrogant.' What we have here is both fundamentalist bashing and America bashing by those who consider themselves to be superior; the elitists snobs.
Rex -
39
Perfect, Nearly Perfect, and Mostly Perfect....Religion
by jgnat inkero-kero's goodbye post brought me to mind a common complaint amongst jw apologists, that all we do is bring up the bad stuff and old history.
after all, "nobody's perfect".
well, that would be fine and dandy if the wtbts hadn't set themselves up as the sole mouthpiece for jehovah in these 'last days'.
-
-
Shining One
>S***ing one: WHERE have I complained about scripture?
Then you have now changed your mind and believe that all scripture is inspired?
>S***ing one: WHERE have I belittled Christian doctrine?
Let's try evangelism and in particular deathbed evangelism; the headship principle; the fact that scripture is divinely inspired and is the foundation for our morals and beliefs; the fact that Jesus is THE ONLY WAY to heaven; the very statements attributed to Jesus in the New Testament......then you will not support absolute truth derived from Biblical mandates. You set yourself up as a judge of scripture when you have no apparent qualifications to do so.
Rex -
27
Are we going to Hell?
by catbert inlets discuss the origins of hell, and whether we are going there.
i don't want to...
-
-
Shining One
>Rev.20:14 "And death and Hades were hurled into the lake of fire". Lake of fire sounds like eternal destruction to me.
Warlock
You never got away from JW, single-scripture exgesis did you? A text without context is a pretext.
Rex -
75
Infallibility of Scripture
by drew sagan inone of this biggest teachings present in mostly all christian denominations is the idea that the bible is infallibile.
my question is, where does the bible say this?
i know of many scriptures that point to the idea that what was written was directed by god, but where does the idea that what written is totally without error originate?
-
-
Shining One
Hey Nark,
The problem with your opinion is the actual textual variance is somewhat less than a half-percent where one ignores simple errors in punctuation or in copying. We KNOW this from comparison of texts and you fail to recognize that little mistake in your own view of the matter....
Scripture is remarkably reliable when one compares the older and newer versions. In fact, we are much more certain of what the early texts said now then ever in history.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068
Rex