Jgnat,
You make ridiculous statements! Jesus broke the sabbath?????? This is why you have no business trying to teach anyone any Bible truths. How could He fulfil the law completely sinless and then break the sabbath? Perhaps if you would just admit that you have no 'leg to stand on' regarding your arbitrary 'worship' of Jesus as God, I would quit interrogating you! You are in a logical trap and you refuse to admit it. You started this when you decided to smear all evangelicals for doing what Jesus has called all Christians to do. Your own comments are not the result of honest error, you are intentionally disobedient of valid scriptural commands, in their proper context. You disobey because you don't agree with the commands.
"If you love me you will be obedient." Do you remember that one?
Rex
Shining One
JoinedPosts by Shining One
-
49
Jesus as Manager and Founder of Christianity
by jgnat inas a manager, i've used jesus as a model and his example has served me well.
i approach my job as a servant 1 , and the people under me are the ones i work for.
i follow the foot-washing principle2.
-
-
Shining One
-
21
Terry, Leolani: your flat-earth lie is debunked..
by Shining One inhttp://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/98216/1692264/post.ashx#1692264 .
go here then you will find the link.
enjoy the read.
-
-
Shining One
>why waste my time on an article that uses the bible as it's main source for evidence? i have very good reason to think that the bible is a load of crap. why would i indulge in picking bible verses apart?
Perhaps you can demonstrate the alleged errors in Dembski's article? If you can't, just shut up.
Rex -
-
-
Shining One
Hi Cygnus,
If you guys are an example of what ex-jws come to perhaps you should have never left. You not only added to the WBTS claims about apostates, you in fact confirmed one of them! I wonder how many potential refugees from the cult will leave before your idiotic joke gets deleted?
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
All Along,
>Jgnat: One of the most kind and thoughtful posters I have seen on this board, who gives helpful advice, does not 'preach' or attempt to shove her belief system down other people's throats while doing so, she was the first person to welcome me to this board, and consistantly welcomes all newbies and encourages them to feel ok to post more.
Yes, and she also denies the inspiration of scripture and is a very nice person I am sure.
>ShiningOne: Argumentative and derisive of others' beliefs,
Nope, I am simply defending my beliefs and sometimes I have to do this by countering other people's contentions. Ad hominem?
>known to hide under alternative names (Rex)
That is my real name. Red Herring? LOL
>frequently belittles other posters and names them in thread titles to challenge them to arguments (example: AlanF),
LOL, whoooo boy. You accuse me of the most common style of argument AlanF uses? You ignore the vicious attacks that are hosted on any believer who dares to stand up to the hecklers. Your appeal to pity somehow strikes me as biased, as you 'ad hominem' your way 'all along the Watchtower!
>I have never seen this user welcome a newbie or encourage others in any way. I'm an atheist, but even I can see who is living up to the christian ideal.
What you probably are offended by is my tendency to stand up for my beliefs, sorry if that does offend you. Welcome, Newbie.
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
Old Soul,
>Let us take an example from Jesus and see if jgnat deserves your criticism, Shining One.
>In Palestine during Jesus' life:(1) Absolute religious authority and relative legal authority were vested in the Sanhedrin. As God's representatives on earth, they interpretted both the application of Law (which included prior oral tradition) and what constituted religious dogma.
They legalistically added to the law, that was their biggest error.
>(2) Their stated "doctrine" included all sorts of rules and regulations as well as beliefs that were not in keeping with the original Law given to Moses. Their Law was a living, breathing instrument subject to change.
Going beyond scripture....
>(3) If someone had a question of Law, therefore, they had to consult a lawyer. The Law was too complex for the laymen to understand. Now enters Jesus:(1) Was he a Jew? Yes.(2) Did he agree with each scintilla of his religion's stated doctrine? Vehemently, no.
Jesus very much believe the 'law and prophets' by His own statements again and again. Straw man, Old Soul.
>(3) Did he disagree only where he felt the doctrine went astray from prior Law? Yes.
He disagreed with the interpretation of the law when it denied the very heart or intent of the law to begin with!
>If you are intellectually honest, you will apply the same measure to jgnat and discover that she is not playing false to her church by conscientiously taking issue with or diverging from their doctrine where it conflicts with her understanding of Scripture (prior Law).
This then creates a situation where she is setting herself up in judgement of the God she claims to follow. This is very different from simply conscientious disagreement. Your whole argument is flawed here and you have trapped yourself in 'dishonesty', not me.
> I trust that you will not apply the same measure, because you have proven your intellectual dishonesty to me.
Ad Hominem; straw man before that; appeal to pity; non-sequiter.
Rex
OldSoul -
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
>ME: Well, that's not very specific. I can't respond to a generality. Jesus Christ did not write any of his talks down.
Does that mean you also deny the infallibility of the gospels? Many of the books of the O.T. may have used several writers. The N.T. often employs a writer who has a scribe do the actual writing. That does not at all make a valid arguemtn against the inspiration of scripture.
>Are you saying that as part of God-the-Trinity, Jesus inspired the writers in years since to write perfect letters of instruction?
Are you denyong the inspiration of the very scriptures that you claim are, 'mostly accurate on Jesus' words'?
>If so, why was a committee formed two hundred years later to judge the quality of the work, and decide which would be part of inspired canon, and which were not?
Have you not seen the efforts of Christianity to fend off heresies? Do you also deny the ability of God to protect His word? BTW, straw man my dear.
>Paul's personality shines through his letters. Was the writing, perhaps, a partnership rather than a robotic takeover?
Straw man?
>Here's an example of a rule modified by the law of love. Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath? Matthew 12:1-14.
Irrelevant to the context of the contention here, you are not answering the questions, you are putting out a 'smoke screen'.
>I have given others,
No, we are not bouncing around from topic to topic, stick to the questions.
>I don't see how judging these examples in the greater context of the law of love is denying a basic command of Christ.
What is the basis for the 'law of love' when you ARBITRARILY deny the infallibility of scripture?
>D. Now, are you worshipping the bible as a god? What are the earmarks of worship?
- Build the god
- Don't question the god
Red Herring: "All scripture is inspired and beneficial for teaching........." YOU deny this because you deny the infallibility of scripture. You set yourself up as a judge over God and that makes you so prideful that you are now idolatrous.
The rest of your post smells very fishy and does nothing but speculates on my motives.
>Also, you have attacked me this entire thread by claiming I cannot be a lover of God if I do not also love the bible, and you keep insisting that if I do not accept ALL the words in the bible, my faith is flawed. That tells me that you have elevated the bible ABOVE God. If you lost your faith in the bible, would your faith in God be similarly demolished?
Speculation, and again you confuse inerrancy with infallibility. Your last question is a false delimma.
>The bible, like the tabernackle of old, was fashioned by men on God's direction. It was dangerous to house God in the tabernackle, as it was vulnerable to poachers or destruction. Tabernackle gone, God's presence gone. Similarly, ancient bible writings are available to men to study, dissect and criticize, which is relatively easier to demolish than God himself in the heavens.
What's this, a 'cause and effect argument'? LOL
Coming back to the point, you deny the scripture and its inspiration then seek to say you actually support what it says. BTW, God is the one who deemed the necessity of the tabernacle and if you actually studied any heremeutics you would see that this is a 'type' of Christ!
> Now one more question, which, being easier, you might actually answer. Do you believe the earth has gone through several ice ages?
Is this an 'appeal to the popular or are you trying to pin on me a genetic fallacy? According to scripture, when the flood story is taken literally, the evidence of an 'ice age' is directly related to the Flood. There are fine Christian men who have honestly taken different sides on this issue. I can see both sides of creationism, young or old. BTW, the Ark is also a 'type' of Christ!
Rex -
49
Jesus as Manager and Founder of Christianity
by jgnat inas a manager, i've used jesus as a model and his example has served me well.
i approach my job as a servant 1 , and the people under me are the ones i work for.
i follow the foot-washing principle2.
-
-
Shining One
Upside/down,
You really need to quit using 'JW exgesis' and start analyzing scripture more than one verse at a time.
Rex -
49
Jesus as Manager and Founder of Christianity
by jgnat inas a manager, i've used jesus as a model and his example has served me well.
i approach my job as a servant 1 , and the people under me are the ones i work for.
i follow the foot-washing principle2.
-
-
Shining One
Jgnat,
You still have not answered the questions at hand. You cannot answer directly, can you?
> Don't let anyone fool you by using senseless arguments. These arguments may sound wise, but they are only human teachings. They come from the powers of this world and not from Christ.
What do you use as a basis (since you deny some scripture as inspired) to judge an argument to be senseless, as they are 'human teachings'? Are you using your own guidelines, you cannot be using the 'law of love', since you deny the infallibility of the scriptures that contain the guideline!
>I rest on the authority of Christ's sacrifice, instead. Christ through his short life fulfilled all that was written about him in the law and the prophets.
Matthew 5:
17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Why don't we follow the ancient dietary laws or sacrifice the blood of bulls and goats at the temple? Because those laws were abolished by Christ. Besides fulfilling the prophecies of his coming, Christ raised the law beyond a set of rules for behavior.
This is exactly the scripture I am referring to. The reason that the civil and sacrificial law is no longer a requirement is the advent and crucixtion of Christ, you should know that. You put up another 'smoke screen' instead of answering my direct question.
> He took those rules and pushed them so high nobody can reach, Matthew 5:17-47, finishing off with a command for us to be perfect. You cited this below:
Galatians 6:1-2 CEV My friends, you are spiritual. So if someone is trapped in sin, you should gently lead that person back to the right path. But watch out, and don't be tempted yourself. You obey the law of Christ when you offer each other a helping hand.
If you deny any part of the scriptures, then how can you judge what is sin and what is not sin. How do you avoid being a legalist or conversely, give license to sin? You also neglected the context if the passage.....btw, this is teaching that tells us the proper way to correct someone who is caught in a habitual sin.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Again, if you deny scripture in the first place, then do you not put yourself in grave danger to attempt to teach others what is correct and incorrect, according to scripture? How in the world can we reach this unattainable perfection. You are right, WE cannot. But that does not give us an to excuse sin. What it does is teach us to rely on Christ's sacrifice. To accept Him as our Lord and savior. Yet you make fun of 'evangelicals', even deride them for trying to reach those who may be lost! You deride those who would see their fellow man gain eternal reward instead of 'stroking their heads' and NOT warning them about hell! How is that any example of 'following the law of love'?
2 Timothy 3
1. But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.2. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,3.without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,4. treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--5.having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.6. They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,
7.always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.
Does any of this context sound familiar?
8.Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth--men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.9. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.10. You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance,11. persecutions, sufferings--what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them.12.In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,13.while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.14. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,15. and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Paul is talking Old Testament here, you cannot deny scripture and then turn around and pretend you are a Christian! None of the New Testament and certainly not any of the gospels even existed at this time! The 'law of love' is based soley on Old Testament teachings. Jesus should know, He wrote the book!
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.
That is the final nail in the coffin for your false argument. When are you going to admit your error? You cited Paul four times, yet I would be willing to bet that there are teachings of Paul (who always referenced Old Testament!) that you deny as well, right? I hope and pray that you come to your senses. You are putting too much faith in man's reasoning ability and not is God's word.
Rex -
21
Terry, Leolani: your flat-earth lie is debunked..
by Shining One inhttp://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/98216/1692264/post.ashx#1692264 .
go here then you will find the link.
enjoy the read.
-
-
Shining One
>er, actually, that circular earth crap belongs to the jews. you xians just adopted it from them. well done.
Really? Perhaps you can debunk the article in the link, point by point? If you can't do that, just shut up. LOL
Rex -
49
God and Science
by Shining One innow here is an interesting take on all things..... .
.
http://www.crosscurrents.org/godand.htm
-
-
Shining One
"I believe in God because I believe there is more reality in heaven and earth than are dreamt in your philosophy." BTW, the part of Horatio was unwittingly played by the Scientific Method in that bit of twisted plagiarism.
I do understand what you are saying. However, this does not mean that Christians need accept the artificial barrier that has been erected by some scientists, i.e., 'science and religion are separate domains'. Typically the unbelievers use this to their advantage by critisism of faith then cry foul when Christians point out the most minor of logical and demonstrable errors in so called scientific theories. You can see this in the attitude of the 'scientific establishment' toward the I.D. scientists, especially biased against the 'Young Earth' research. Check that out in my 'Dembski's Defense' thread.
Rex