Hi Tetly,
I am a Christian foremost, part of the body of Christ. My particular denomination is inconsequential to my faith, other than I happen to agree with the particular conservative doctrines expressed. However, that is always subject to change, as my faith and knowledge becomes more refined.
I do not decide on matters of heaven and hell. That is not my province. I do believe it exists just as I believe heaven exists. Neither are within this universe nor are they in the stream of time. Here is a point where the JW cult has consistently mistranslated and misapplied 'sheol' and 'hades'. As scripture has progressed the aspects of this have changed. Before the advent of Christ the terms expressed were two aspects of the hereafter: Paradise (sometimes called 'Abraham's bosom') and hell, you can see this in the passage in Luke where Jesus tells us of the 'Rich Man' and Lazarus and in the Old Testament passage where Saul has a witch call up the soul of Samuel and God allows it. Further, the book of Hebrews has a passage that explains that the ancient heroes (Heb. 11) were looking forward to a heavenly place. Our Lord also took the 'captives' with Him to heaven during His ascension.
I do not hold to the Society's position on lying as a means to an end.
I am not an expert on biology or evolutionary theory. I generally leave that to others, though I do like to stir up the arrogant, elitist naturalists that seek to destroy everyone's faith in God.
Buddah, Allah and the 'Jehovah' that JWs portray are absolutely false gods, they are either imaginary or demonic. Judaism, Islam and cults have all been left behind during the revelation of scripture. The same heresies keep sprouting up in different forms and we (the Church) deal with them as we always have.
The evidence is overwhelming regarding the advent of Christ, creation is an obvious reality speaking to the existence of God, human pride and reasoning have always attempted to dethrone God and put 'self' on the throne. From your posts I can see that this is the case for you....at the moment.
BTW, if you want Christ in your life and to show Himself, you need to ask Him or my prayers will not suffice.
Rex
Shining One
JoinedPosts by Shining One
-
151
Questions for Jgnat
by Shining One injgnat, .
you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.
here are my answers to your charges.
-
-
Shining One
-
151
Questions for Jgnat
by Shining One injgnat, .
you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.
here are my answers to your charges.
-
-
Shining One
None of the 'cheerleaders' answered the first question posed to Jgnat. Here it is again:
"Are you saying that respect for and obedience to scriptural commands is somehow incorrect for Christians?"
Let me break that down a little.
If you claim to be a Christian and yet assert that the Bible is unreliable, then are you really a Christian? Do you share your faith, i.e., that the only way to salvation is through the Jesus Christ described in the Bible?
Do you contend that something more than the blood of Jesus, spilled on the cross, is necessary for salvation? In other words, do you have to observe man-made traditions that have been established by various religions or do you accept the standard that we are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus?
If you do not observe and try to obey, Matthew 28.18-20 and Acts 1.8, how can you honestly say that you are a 'Christian'?
There is no 'inquistion' here. There is a call for honesty, instead making excuses as to why you find the glorious gospel to be shameful! You refuse to be 'salt and light' and let the world shape you instead of letting Christ transform your mind and quicken your spirit. Some of you are sitting around self-righteously fooling yourselves that compromise in order to 'not be offensive' is somehow noble and correct. You are 'not offending' people to their own peril. In Revelation that is called 'lukewarm' and it is an offense to the cross of Christ!
Rex -
151
Questions for Jgnat
by Shining One injgnat, .
you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.
here are my answers to your charges.
-
-
Shining One
Hi Tetrapodal,
You are amusing to yourself, aren't you?
>i have some questions for you rex:
what church do you belong to?
The church of Jesus Christ, He is my Lord and savior.
>do you think that if i died tomorrow, i would go to hell?
It doesn't matter what I think. A more pertinent question would be this: do you think you would go to hell if you died tomorrow?
>do you think that it is okay to lie if it means defending the glory of christ?
Don't play games with logical traps and 'catch 22' questions. You are trying to define 'lying' as 'apologetics' and I will not fall for it!
>do you dig catholics?
I can take some or leave some.
>how do you explain body hair?
how do you explain DNA as it relates to genomes?
>did jesus tell you to come here to JWD and try to help?
I try to be obedient to the will of God in my life. It may be here and it may not be, depending on how much I 'abide on the vine'. See John 15 and maybe you will gain some insight.
>do you pray for me?
Specifically you? I am not sure but I will do so now. I have prayed for those who say they do not believe in God.
>and don't lie. jesus is watching you rex. but i am sure he wants you to answer the questions, i can feel it in my heart.
God is not one to be mocked. You do so at your own peril.....
REx -
151
Questions for Jgnat
by Shining One injgnat, .
you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.
here are my answers to your charges.
-
-
Shining One
Q. I wonder why you claim to be Christian when you consistently ignore scripture and context?
A. I am a follower of Christ. Not a follower of Bible. There's a difference.
AQ How can you say you ‘follow’ Christ when the Bible tells the story of Christ?
Q. Are you saying that trying to respect and obey scriptural commands is somehow incorrect for Christians?
A. Trying to defend the bible as infallible as God is infallible is doomed to failure. You are forced to believe that the world is a flat disk supported on pillars. Sheol below, and a dotted tent above, Heaven. This is what the Isrealite ancestors believed, and this is what the OT references to Sheol and Heaven are based on.
QA Not at all, you are confusing primitive literal definitions with literal scripture. You are also mistaking ‘infallibility’ with ‘inerrancy’. Have you read any mainstream commentaries on the verses in question or do you rely totally on the ‘Jesus Seminar’ naturalists and Alan F style unbelievers for ‘honest’ conclusions?
Q. What do you use as the standard to justify ignoring some scripture and embracing others?
A. Two scriptures I use as my touchstone; Love God, love others as myself. And second, if it bears good fruit, we got it right.
QA So, you ignore all relevant scripture that you disagree with personally? What then is the basis for your own belief? If you don't believe that it teaches the truth of Almighty God, then how can you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ? What is ‘good fruit’, letting unbelievers run roughshod over the beliefs of those who are at their most vulnerable?
Q. The 'inconsistencies' that you claim exist are typically reconciled.
A. Yes, but at what cost? If I took all scripture literally, I should be wearing a headpiece as I speak to you. I am not.
QA That my dear is a straw man that makes the scarecrow look like a ‘piker’. You are again confusing cultism with REAL CHRISTIANITY.
A. Modern apologetics "explain away" this requirement, but by doing so, they lose their integrity. If the bible is infallible, then there should not be anything to "explain away".
QA No one is talking about taking ‘all scripture literally’ and again, infallibility and ‘inerrancy’ are two separate issues.
Q. Christians do not have to explain nor account for all alleged 'inconsistencies' to gain the upper hand in apologetics.
A. True, if they are defending their faith. If, on the other hand, they are trying to defend the bible as infallible, they must certainly explain every inconsistency. Without relying on modern work-arounds. This is because athiests also have available to them full texts of the bible and rightfully so can call us to account.
QA We don’t have to account for their laziness in not being schooled on legitimate methods used for analyzing scripture. As far as explaining every nuance, we are dealing with translations of many types, not with the original manuscripts. ‘Inerrancy’ is a moot point, since we do not have the originals!
Q. 'Twisted doctrine' is the result of interpreting scripture out of context. Perhaps you can explain to us the basis you use to judge another Christian's obedience to scripture and why they should not do so?
A. I gave three examples. Four including the headpiece. The JW abstension from blood is another. The JW's insistence that God's heroes weren't such bad guys after all, by explaining away their indescretions. Such as David's murder of Bathsheba's first husband.
QA You are using the straw man again. Jwism is not REAL CHRISTIANITY.
Q. Again, if you do not hold scripture to be factual,
A. Scripture is factual now? Scripture to back that up, please.
QA ‘Factual’ is a general assessment. Your question is facetious.
Q. ....on what basis do you claim to be Christian?
A. I .....am.....a.......follower......of......Christ. I am reasonably certain that Jesus' instruction got to us fairly intact. I am confident in following his example, and take the cross if necessary.
QA You say you will ‘take the cross’, yet you do not believe the scripture that describes and defines the cross in the first place!
Q. * I've seen abusers use the bible to force their victims to "forgive" them and remain in an abusive situation. How can a Christian accomplish this without being a cultist, like you and I came out of? Surely you are not comparing orthodox Christianity with Jw-ism, are you?
A. I was never a JW. The examples of which I am speaking were in an evangelical church. I am saying that ANYBODY can use the bible as an offensive weapon, if they are diabolical enough.
QA If the persons were ‘in an evangelical church’, then don’t generalize and lump all evangelicals together.
A. I saw it. It was shameful. I know in my heart of hearts it was wrong. Now, I share my faith in all kinds of situations. But I do it when the person is relaxed and in possession of all their faculties. If a person is not in a frame of mind to write a will, why would we coerce a deathbed conversion from them?
QA Then you need to define what you mean, naturally a person who cannot understand what is going on is not ready to decide the matters of faith. But again, you assume some dying soul no longer has a chance to make a decision for Christ? Who made you God? That is so arrogant and it is not at all loving or compassionate! You would condemn them to a hell of their own making instead of giving them a chance for heaven?
Q. We are told to not seek to be a teacher of scripture unless we are called to do so. Remember that there is a heavier responsibility and weightier judgment for those who teach error or 'stumble others'.
A. Are you suggesting I 'stumble others' with my opinion? In my opinion, your arrogant presentation of "Christianity" does more harm.
QA Read the book, my dear. Yes, you are absolutely ‘stumbling others’ right into the pit of hell. I back up my actions with scripture and it is in context. It is not being ashamed of the gospel as you evidently are.
A. BTW, I consider my gift to be "encourager". At least one poster here has thanked me for turning her to God and away from disillusionment.
QA Keep encouraging then in your own way but ask yourself these questions: Have you turned this person to ‘a god’ or to God? Do you deny scripture in order to make the Bible more palatable, in other words, are you ‘apologizing for God’ and claiming He is not in providential control of all things? What is your basis for belief if certain portions of God‘s word are not factual?
Rex -
157
Evolutionary establishment tactics
by hooberus inwednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.
" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
-
-
Shining One
REM,
When are you going to quit mixing up unproven macro-evolution and observable microevolution?
Rex -
157
Evolutionary establishment tactics
by hooberus inwednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.
" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
-
-
Shining One
Hi Scholar,
While I may not agree with all of your conclusions, you have it Alan right on his square head. He constantly points out irrelevant details in an attempt to embarrass or intimidate those who disagree with him. Did I spell everything right here or miss a 'typo'? Who cares, Alan and his neonaturalist followers seem to be the few who do.
BTW, Alan, if you read this I want to see your grand explanation for your own deistic belief system. Just how do you square that logically?
Rex -
157
Evolutionary establishment tactics
by hooberus inwednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.
" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
-
-
Shining One
REM,
Do you ever get tired of using logical terms to try and show how 'intellectual' you seek to be?
Rex -
64
Since it is obvious all religion is wrong why do so many believe?
by jwfacts inany religion that claims it is the only correct one is obviously wrong.
by it's arrogance it becomes mutually exclusive of any other religion.
when one steps back they can see that the contradiction of one religion over the others is a proof that they all must be wrong.
-
-
Shining One
Seynothing said:
>The journey from JWism to Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) is nothing more than a jump from the frying pan and into the fire. The replacement of one set of beliefs with an equally comical set of beliefs.
NO, JWism is a cult that abuses the members, spiritually and sometimes physically. You need to look at the difference that Steve Hassan and others show between 'abuse' and 'conversion'. 'Equally comical set of beliefs' also applies to naturalism, it it applies to Christianity.
>Nothing more than a crutch for those that can't accept (or refuse to face) reality.
Your present perception of 'reality' is your own version of self worship. You have replaced JW 'new light' with your own style of 'new light'.
>One religions claims of truth are no more valid than any others. Each and every one should be examined with the same magnifying glass used on the Watchtower. When you do....they all fall.
Really? Perhaps you could outline why each belief system 'falls' and in what way? The truth is that reasoning and logic cannot even begin to analyze the supernatural. It itself is transcendant and is a manifestation of the supernatural. Science cannot explain it and all logic breks down at some point when you attempt to grasp the REALITY of the universe: the undescribable size of the universe and the irreducible complexity of life and the question of origins.
>I see more churchianity than christianity in the world. The JWs are wrong, so I am a Baptist. The Baptists are wrong, so I am a Catholic. The Catholics are wrong, so I am a Lutheran...and on, and on, and on.............
Your feeble and simplistic assertion shows that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, sorry.
Rex -
50
A Link for the Liberal Loudmouths
by Shining One inhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050902/cm_csm/ekatrina .
read it and see that the pres actually was on the ball and had the machinery turned on and ready to operate.
if a dummy like clinton (gore or kerry as well) had been in charge, who knows what would have happened!
-
-
Shining One
Since may here seem to refuse to see the facts, here is a partial quote of the article:
Last year, local and state officials along the Gulf of Mexico were criticized for poor evacuation procedures in advance of hurricane Ivan. This time, they called for mandatory evacuations early on and opened all lanes to outbound traffic on the two interstates leading away from Louisiana's and Mississippi's most populous areas. More than a million people fled, including about 80 percent of the population of New Orleans.
Because President Bush designated both states disaster areas in advance of the storm, the Red Cross and the Federal Emergency Management Agency could mobilize beforehand, setting up shelters and bringing water, ice, and food.
Rightly, the Bush administration recognized the storm's ripple effect on oil, and temporarily waived key air-quality fuel standards to increase gas supplies after the storm damaged the Gulf's petroleum infrastructure.
The Pentagon has also sprung into action with an unprecedented domestic joint task force, coordinating National Guard and active-duty forces across four states. Meanwhile, naval vessels and helicopters are on the way.
But the death toll; the plight of people too ill, poor, or stubborn to evacuate; the lawlessness; and the billions of dollars in destroyed homes and businesses show just how much officials at all levels - and individuals - still have to learn in handling a truly far-reaching disaster.
Response has been quick, but with more prepositioning of National Guard forces and equipment, it could have been faster. Evacuation planning should have served disadvantaged people better. This storm reminds coastal regions that wetlands preservation does matter in controlling flooding (Louisiana has lost 1 million acres of marshland since 1930), and so do......
Read the rest and try to come up with some independent conclusions.
Rex -
50
A Link for the Liberal Loudmouths
by Shining One inhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050902/cm_csm/ekatrina .
read it and see that the pres actually was on the ball and had the machinery turned on and ready to operate.
if a dummy like clinton (gore or kerry as well) had been in charge, who knows what would have happened!
-
-
Shining One
I see from the general comments here that there is an overwhelming lack of investigation into the facts that I have linked you to. You simply want to follow the liberal agenda, just as many of you followed the Watchtower agenda. I amazed that any of you actually left the BORG.
Well, maybe you really haven't? You are still 'followers': the lib media does your thinking for you.
I am not a republican. I vote for the least offensive candidate or 'none of the above'. I believe that the republicans have a 'achilles heel' issue and unfortunately the dems have shown no real evidence that they will take advantage of it. Illegal immigration is a topic in question, along with our sinking wage scales and LACK OF good jobs, caused by this and the false notion that there can be any 'level playing field' in agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA.
Rex