|
Author
|
Topic: Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
Message 279 of 321 (478646)
08-19-2008 3:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 278 by jaywill
08-18-2008 1:35 PM
|
|
Re: Theocracies
NosyNed writes: Because every theocracy ever established extinguishes the rights of those who disagree with it. Sometimes slowly sometimes faster. jaywill writes: Yea, I guess under atheistic regimes like that of Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin we did see some tendencies like that. You seem to have forgotten Hong Xiuquan of the Tiapeng Rebellion. After all, like so many of our Nietzschean fundamentalists, he simply believed he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ and therefore above the rules. After all what is 20-30 million deaths compared to one person's claims to divinity? Anyone like to read the Sermon on the Mount again?
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 278 by jaywill, posted 08-18-2008 1:35 PM | | jaywill has replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 283 of 321 (479002)
08-23-2008 2:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 280 by jaywill
08-19-2008 8:13 AM
|
|
Theocracies Suck for Many Reasons
I am a bit reluctant to respond to you in this particular thread as it seems our conversation is moving it off-topic. However, I have found a good reason to respond to this particular post as it may lead to a new thread.
jaywill writes: You have body count on how many people died because of the fanaticism not taught by Jesus, but was exploited by a sinner. He learned about Christianity from Western missionaries, a well documented historic fact. The problem is that much of what he learned came from poorly translated snippets of the Bible. One reason I pointed out the Tiapeng Rebellion as a problem is I wanted to show what tragic consequences can occur when self-proclaimed personal inerrancy in Biblical interpretation is practiced in the real world. The other reason is that I find it incredibly simple-minded to assert that all atheists are 'bad' while anyone who claims to be divinely inspired is automatically 'good.' In addition to Hong Xiuquan, we have several American examples such as Jim Jones, David Koresh, 'Bo' and "Peep,' and of course the infamous Charles Manson, who claimed to be both Jesus and Satan. It is also incredibly arrogant of one who purports a desire to convert and save souls to conversely demonize them and therefore help drive them away from Christ just for a warped sense of personal satisfaction. Of course, I doubt that in your shoot-from-the-hip style of posting, you actually want to open yourself up to these negative connotations, but it is difficult to determine what you really intend with the 'me and mine is saved, everyone else is damned' and 'I am one with Christ and you're not, nyah, nyah, nyah' message I still keep seeing.
Do you have any stats or body count on how many people down through the centries were healed, had cloths put on their naked backs, had food placed on their tables, were sheltered, were assisted, were provided homes, were fed, were bandaged, were guided,were kept from going astray into crime,were educated, were supplied with necessities in the name of Jesus Christ? Do you have body count on those matters also? I mean we should be historically objective about the matter of things done under the banner of Christ. You could also include wars not fought or prevented because of prayers to God or because of someone being enfluenced by a conscience under Christ's teachings. I don't have any offhand but if you do, please post them in a new thread. I think such a discussion (or in our case argument), would provide for a very interesting topic. Perhaps you would learn to appreciate what high regard I have for Christians who actually go out and heal the sick, feed the poor, and bring peace as actually instructed to do in the NT. Nah, I doubt it.  I will await your PNT for a week or two and if you prove too bashful to propose this as a topic, I think I will.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 280 by jaywill, posted 08-19-2008 8:13 AM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
More Self-Righteous BS from a Reader and not a Doer
Bertot writes: This is one of the things we have that you cannot see presently I'm saved you're not: nyah, nyah, nyah. It's called cheap grace. To even assume some Biblical justification to criticize a person as insufficiently Christian who does what Jesus commanded, namely in just one matter, which is to counsel those in prison as so few so-called Christians can seem 'lower' themselves to do, is beyond the pale. I think one could learn a lot more from Phat about Christianity than anyone possibly can from your own self-righteousness. Do you actually think that you will impress God with a bunch of quotes you don't even seem to clearly understand? I'm sorry, that is all I see. Anyone can quote this or that Bible, the real question is can one live the essential teachings common to all Bibles. Edited by anglagard, : bad punctuation
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 296 of 321 (479639)
08-29-2008 2:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 294 by Phat
08-28-2008 11:47 AM
|
|
This is Getting Both Interesting and a Bit Unnerving
Jaywill is clearly a member of this group, the Living Stream Ministry. Now everything is becoming a lot clearer to me concerning this thread. The paranoia comes from evangelical criticism of this group as a cult, to which this denomination/cult has unsuccessfully sued in response, much like Scientology resorts to litigation to eliminate negative publicity. This 'cult' has gurus, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, through which all interpretation of the Bible must be vetted, similar to having the additional 'prophets' of Joseph Smith, Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, or even Mohamed in other cults/denominations/religions. I think you need to consider the combination of paranoia and secrecy evident in such members posts, such as jaywill's, before embracing this clearly non-mainstream interpretation of any Bible. Paranoia and secrecy are very cult-type behaviors. In fact they have even rewritten whatever Bibles that currently exist into their own "Recovery Version Bible." Now it seems not so strange that jaywill refused to answer my question concerning which version of the Bible is infallible. Such secretiveness is disconcerting. At any rate, the further I research this group, the more revealing jaywill's posts become. He appears to be on a mission to convert those he determines savable into this potential 'cult' which claims they are the only true form of Christianity, available to the unwashed masses only since the 60s. I can see, but still not understand, why they and the evangelicals are battling. How many "real" Christians that violently disagree can one fit on this planet before they are at each others throats? One thing I found quite revealing is that members of this 'cult' apparently believe that if they infuse themselves enough with the spirit of Christ, they become a 'god.' No wonder jaywill reacts so adamantly against any accusation of cheap grace. After all Bonhoeffer was only speaking about people declaring themselves saved. I think declaring oneself a god goes far beyond any self-declaration of salvation. I would even venture to say it violates the first commandment concerning having other gods before me (me presumably being the Christian God). From Apologetics Index:
quote:
One example of The Local Church’s serious departure from biblical Christianity is Witness Lee’s teaching on the deification of the believer: “Sooner or later, you have to be made God . . All of God’s redeemed people will eventually become gods as the very God in life, in nature, and in appearance but not in the Godhead.”17 In the October 2002 issue of Affirmation & Critique, a journal published by Living Stream Ministry, an article titled “Becoming God” states, “Because we have been born of God, we have the life and nature of God, and in this sense we are God.”18 The Local Church goes to great lengths to clarify that “there are permanent boundaries to our deification: In Christ we become God in life and in nature for God’s expression, but we do not become God in the Godhead or as an object of worship.”19 But no matter how The Local Church explains their perspective, it simply is not found within biblical, orthodox Christian doctrine. Christian theologian Millard J. Erickson states, “There will always be a difference between God and man . . Even when redeemed and glorified, we will still be renewed human beings. We will never become God. He will always be God and we will always be humans, so that there will always be a transcendence.”20
I think I see why jaywill considers any questioning of his supposed superiority over others an insult. Apparently he thinks he is well on his way to becoming god. I bet his response will prove interesting. Also, be sure to follow the links in the Wiki articles. Following links is something jaywill refused to do which is why he hasn't the slightest idea as to what I meant by Altemeyer's research into Right Wing Authoritarianism. A 'god' (or is that ubermensch?) incapable of following a link? unbelievable! Edited by anglagard, : better englich
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 294 by Phat, posted 08-28-2008 11:47 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
On Using Bible Quotes in Full
Bertot writes: I have challenged Phat and Anglangaard to state what it is that they expect an "Spirit Filled" person to or act like and they have moved away from thier assertion. I have also, challenged them to state in no uncertain terms thier positions on these matters, but they seem to not want to debate but quibble. A "Spirit Filled" person would heal the sick, feed the poor, and bring peace, as stated here in Matthew 25:31-46:
quote:
25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Now I'm sure like all good judges, you can quote mine other parts of the Bible that support a faith-only, behavior don't count, version. Of course by doing so, you will not only show how the Bible contradicts itself, but also show how one will censor the Bible to support the cheap grace position. Want Biblical justification? Try Matthew 7, as in all of it.
quote:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? 12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. 28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
As for any matter you choose to debate, just ask. If you want to call everything I state a quibble to make yourself feel better, feel free. Also, I work for a living. Don't expect me to always be there every waking moment simply waiting to respond to your posts as your seemingly inflated ego appears to demand. I have other, more important issues that come first. Edited by anglagard, : Include Matthew 25, for those who won't follow links. Edited by anglagard, : discovered a to in place of the.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 309 of 321 (479747)
08-30-2008 3:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 300 by jaywill
08-29-2008 7:07 AM
|
|
Re: This is Getting Both Interesting and a Bit Unnerving
jaywill writes: Becomming God in our understanding does not mean these few things: 1.) Becomming omnipotent 2.) Becomming omnipresent 3.) Becomming omniscient 4.) Becomming an object of worship 5.) Becomming a Creator of universes (There may be other aspects I could add to that list) Greek Orthodoxy has taught a kind of Deification or Divinization for centries. Athanasius refered to by some as "the father of orthodoxy" said that God became man so that man might become God. In "becomming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" we do not mean that ALL attributes of God are communicable. But a son of a horse is a horse. The son of a cat is a cat. The son of a gerbil is a gerbil. The son of an eagle is an eagle. The son of a man is a man. What then is the son of God? In a very real and biblical sense the son of God is God in life and nature but not in His Godhead. We believe that Jesus is God/Man. And the Apostle John says that "we shall be like Him" (1 John 3:2. Witness Lee didn't put that in the Bible. The Holy Spirit through the Apostle John did. Then why use the same word "God" to confer two different concepts? Isn't the English language confusing enough without adding to the problem? Besides, even should one insist on using the term "God" in this context, couldn't one use a qualifier, such as becoming a servant of God, or becoming what God intends us to be, instead of just saying "becoming God," that brings up some serious questions concerning one's humility in defining their role in the universe? Also, how is claiming to be "God" or "as God" something less than declaring oneself 'saved' and therefore above any and all rules of conduct as the cheap grace crowd would have it?
Will you resort to "guilt by association" and tie John in with Mary Baker Eddy also Angelgard? Well, one would have to ask a Christian Scientist about what they consider their relative roles, not me. As for either Mary Baker Eddy or John, neither are Christ, a point apparently easily missed.
Sons of God are in the same family as God and share the life and nature of God. They just do not share the Headship of God. The Apostle Peter said that the disciples (not just those in Living Stream Ministry or who meet with local churches reciptive to Witness Lee) are "partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)". So if we proclaim to our Christian brothers and sisters throughout the world wherever they meet, that we Christians are "partakers of the divine nature{" (2 Pet .1:4), how does that make us superior to others? That is part of the Gospel. Am I right? Peter's phrase "partakers of the divine nature" does not simply observers or spectators. Partakers are participants. So it is the common portion of all Christians that have received Christ into them that they are participants and "partakers of the divine nature." Where is the sense of superiority in proclaiming what is the biblical birthright of all believers in Christ? If you were to take out the independent and near-co-equal aspects of this teaching and instead state one is or becomes a part of God, you would be accused of pantheism. Please feel free to elaborate further as I am unfamiliar with this, to me, strange and unusual doctrine.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 300 by jaywill, posted 08-29-2008 7:07 AM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 310 of 321 (479748)
08-30-2008 3:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 298 by jaywill
08-29-2008 6:24 AM
|
|
Re: This is Getting Both Interesting and a Bit Unnerving
jaywill writes: I am a registered Democrat in my state, if you must know about my politics. Is that Okay with you or does your paranoia insist that I must be a registered Republican so I can subscribe to "Right Wing Authorianism?"  Had you actually read the link I provided to Altemeyer's research, you would realize his term 'right-wing authoritarianism' has little or nothing to do with the terms 'right wing,' republicans, or conservatives in general except where they have authoritarian leanings and instead has everything to do with authoritarianism in general, whatever its source. I would provide a direct quote but the files are in pdf and I am presently too tired and lazy to see if I can convert them to something I can quote directly. Maybe later. It was not only a debate point but also a test to see if you would read any links I may put up. Sorry, you flunked.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 298 by jaywill, posted 08-29-2008 6:24 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 312 by jaywill, posted 08-30-2008 8:52 AM | | anglagard has replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
Re: More Self-Righteous BS from a Reader and not a Doer
Anglagard writes: I think one could learn a lot more from Phat about Christianity than anyone possibly can from your own self-righteousness. Bertot writes: Notice how your sentence starts, "I think", but its me that is self-righteous, Hmmmm? You problem is with God and Christ my simple little friend. See Message 308 Bertot writes: Well Ive been studying these "simple verses" some thirty five years now and I thought I had a general understanding of what thier very simple implication or understanding was, but apparently I dont. so if you could enlighten me through your vast wisdom, (possibly Gnostic in nature) without simply "asserting" that I dont understand them, maybe this will help me. lets see if you can make more than baseless assertions. Perhaps you should include Matthew 7 and 25 in your 35 years of study. 
Anglagard writes: Anyone can quote this or that Bible, the real question is can one live the essential teachings common to all Bibles. Bertot writes: What is the essential teachings common to all Bibles and how did you decide what they should be? Did you get this from God through inspiration or are you using your own "self-righteouness" to decide? Actually I made a mistake by stating this as not all versions of the Bible actually even include the New Testament nor am I able to reference more than 20 versions. What I should have said was all New Testaments of which I am familiar. As for essential teachings, I would include the golden rule or even that part about "judge not lest ye be judged." Now supporting this point will involve an unusually long post. Is that what you demand? As to self-righteousness, I just admitted I made a mistake. Time will tell if you can do the same. Also, it would help move the debate process along if you can tell me which translation of the Bible is the one you consider infallible and 'inspired by God' as there are several different versions, as I have pointed out. And a minor point, could you and jaywill please learn how to use the spell checker in Firefox or at least Google. Your posts with all those misspellings make you two look as if you lack a proper grasp of the English language.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 290 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-26-2008 10:08 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 314 of 321 (479771)
08-30-2008 9:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 312 by jaywill
08-30-2008 8:52 AM
|
|
Re: This is Getting Both Interesting and a Bit Unnerving
jaywill writes: Hey, you get tired too? So likewise I didn't stop and read through every article in your link when I'd rather discuss our topics here. And if YOU had read your link you might have realized that a thorough defense and confirmation from Fuller Theological Seminary was there saying that the local churches were in fact, NOT a cult. F to you too. At least you haven't descended to the depths yet of that other evolving troll. I think he's soon to graduate to a level to be able to scribble some names on the boy's room bathroom wall. Discussion Forums are a little over his head obviously. I intentionally used semiquotes when using the term cult to indicate that I do not believe this moniker should be applied to your religious denomination. It is clear to me that with some 100,000 converts, a lack of desire to commit mass suicide, and no record in my research so far, that your denomination uses force to prevent converts from leaving 'the fold,' it does not meet the usual definitions of a cult. Evidently you are unused to how I use semiquotes to confer my use of non-standard definitions I do not agree with. The end deal is you have and still refuse to read what I link to while I am currently studying your take on Christianity and will shortly be perusing the links you yourself have provided. Of course posts such as this one will likely make me lose interest as "ye shall know them by their fruits."
You too. And stop lying. You're not "sorry" at all. Judging me as an unworthy liar is indeed easier than Matthew 7:1. Is this what we can expect from your self-proclaimed near-equality to God? A person unable to control their emotions despite a claim to near-perfection? I am indeed sorry for you that despite any claim to such massive scholarship involving Christianity, that once confronted with the actual words of the Sermon on the Mount, you still deny many fundamental lessons in the NT, IMHO. Edited by anglagard, : add IMHO as I do not declare myself the arbiter of truth.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 312 by jaywill, posted 08-30-2008 8:52 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 316 by jaywill, posted 08-30-2008 10:09 AM | | anglagard has replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 318 of 321 (480130)
09-01-2008 12:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 316 by jaywill
08-30-2008 10:09 AM
|
|
Re: This is Getting Both Interesting and a Bit Unnerving
Anglagard writes: I intentionally used semiquotes when using the term cult to indicate that I do not believe this moniker should be applied to your religious denomination. jaywill writes: We don't denominate at all. Unless you want to call not receiving unbelievers into the church as members is denominational. The fact of the matter is that the local churches practice receiving all believers. That is why it is truly "local". Any believer particularly local to the assembly, living in that city, is to be receieved as a brother if they are Christians. From reading about your belief system, I know that members of your belief system hate the word denomination almost as much as they hate the word cult. I gather that this is because that while they consider any and all other manners of belief false, they do not consider the members of such supposedly 'false' beliefs irredeemable. This belief system is not unique to yours, and is actually quite common among the other 'denominations' of Christianity. Now I am uncomfortable with calling your religious movement 'the local church' as this term in the English Language normally indicates the neighborhood church around the corner from where they live. So I guess in order to not offend you I could use the clumsier terms, 'the small group of Christians that jaywill follows' which is not very descriptive, or the really clumsy term 'small group of Christians that believe in a modified form of Christianity that is promoted by believers in Watchman Lee and Witness Ne in their interpretation of the Bible.' Perhaps I should call it 'jaywill's Christianity.' Personally I would find the term egotistical, but you may not. At any rate, please tell the rest of the world, using the least amount of words possible, and the least potentially deceptive term possible, what we should call your belief system and I will use that term. One problem I am seeing in even conversing with you at all is that you insist on using non-standard definitions of such common words as 'God,' (in the case of becoming god as opposed to being God) 'local church,' 'denomination,' and so on. If you insist on conversing in a language other than English of which I and virtually all other members of this forum use, I see no point in continuing a discussion, as you can make any word mean what you may want it to mean regardless of the most basic rules of logic.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 316 by jaywill, posted 08-30-2008 10:09 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 319 by jaywill, posted 09-02-2008 11:33 PM | | anglagard has replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 320 of 321 (480792)
09-06-2008 1:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 319 by jaywill
09-02-2008 11:33 PM
|
|
Super Saved
I expect from Anglagaard. Well, maybe this one time but you have to remember, I am not your slave so I will not always accede to your demands.
1.) A quotation showing that I said I was superior to others on the Board While you did not state the exact words "I am superior to others on this board," you most certainly used the equivalent words in the English Language. For example, from Message 166:
quote:
Disbelief of the Bible comes in all shapes and sizes. In your case your escape hatch into disbelief is always "literary genre".
Apparently, a little more educated sounding or sophisticated than some cruder rejections. But a rejection of God's word just the same.
I read your attempts to still salvage some grand artistic importance from what you read as perhaps just a way to bribe your conscience by getting something else, just not God's speaking.
You judged Archer as inferior to you due to your superior ”cult’ membership despite knowing virtually nothing concerning any relationship to any deity he may have You even conditionally apologized for your assertion here in message 178:
quote:
But you are right. My misread of the post in this particular discussion cannot prove s/he said the NT was fiction.
Sorry for that mistake.
Have you forgotten your own posts?.
quote:
I think I am more bothered by the contradictions of your godlessness.
You judged me as inferior to you due to your superior ”cult’ membership despite knowing virtually nothing concerning any relationship to any deity I may have. A statement for which I seriously doubt you will ever apologize for under any conditions as I have questioned your on-again, off-again self proclaimed perfection. From message 182:
quote:
There is only one God, not my private custom made one in the contemptuous sense that you wrote.
But in Message 300 you stated:
quote:
Becomming God in our understanding does not mean these few things:
1.) Becomming omnipotent
2.) Becomming omnipresent
3.) Becomming omniscient
4.) Becomming an object of worship
5.) Becomming a Creator of universes
(There may be other aspects I could add to that list)
Greek Orthodoxy has taught a kind of Deification or Divinization for centries.
Athanasius refered to by some as "the father of orthodoxy" said that God became man so that man might become God.
In "becomming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" we do not mean that ALL attributes of God are communicable. But a son of a horse is a horse. The son of a cat is a cat. The son of a gerbil is a gerbil. The son of an eagle is an eagle. The son of a man is a man.
What then is the son of God? In a very real and biblical sense the son of God is God in life and nature but not in His Godhead.
You and the members of your ”cult’ are still either claiming to be, or on your way, to becoming ”god.’ Now once confronted with this weird theology, you decide to arbitrarily redefine the word ”god’ to include yourself but not everyone else’s definition (outside the ”cult’). Obviously if you claim to be a part of the ”cult’ that flatly states you and other members of this ”cult’ are becoming or are ”god’ while all others who do not worship Watchman Lee or Witness Ne as divine prophets are fated to oblivion unless they are converted, then you are most certainly claiming superiority over virtually all others on this board. Besides, if all the members of the ”cult’ become ”god,’ how can one then seriously claim there is but one God?
quote:
2.) A quotation saying I was near perfection.
See above. You are the one claiming to be in the process of becoming ”god.’
quote:
3.) A quotation specifying which teachings of Jesus in Sermon on the Mount I denied.
See above. Try “judge not lest ye be judged” or “beware of false prophets.”
quote:
You should produce my quotations or retract your charges. Then we could move on to another subject, ie. the local church.
Like Bluegenes, I have no desire to discuss your ”cult’ or the false prophecy of witness such-and-such who apparently thinks he is ”god.’ Besides neither I nor anyone else can debate or discuss anything with someone who makes up definitions of common English words just to justify any absurd position they may hold. It is the Humpty-Dumpty defense.
quote:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
There can be no discussion of what the Bible means if one can make any word mean anything they choose. Also, if cheap grace is declaring oneself saved, what does that make someone who declares oneself ”god’ or becoming ”god?’ super-saved?
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 319 by jaywill, posted 09-02-2008 11:33 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 321 by jaywill, posted 09-29-2008 1:50 PM | | anglagard has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2