- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hey Mod,
I have no clue as to why my post above turned out the way it did with the column. Here is the link for the source so you can read it correctly. I posted the link above but it didn't get included for some reason.
http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm
There have been a lot strange things happening lately. I can't login in on my regular username too. When I use bold it sometimes disappears and I get </b> instead of [/b].
Can I get editing rights on KJ Jr until KJ is back? I wanted to try to correct the weird post above but I could not.
Roo
Mod,
I tried to post my source again correctly and it did not work so it must be the website. Please delete the duplicate post immediately above.
Thanks,
Roo
Done – Mod Squad
Jack, neither of those quotes say anything about Jesus being God Almighty. And the one about "God said…." isn't even scriptural. Are these the knuckleheads that you wish to follow?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 08 2010,08:55) Done – Mod Squad Jack, neither of those quotes say anything about Jesus being God Almighty. And the one about "God said…." isn't even scriptural. Are these the knuckleheads that you wish to follow?
mike
Mike,You need to read the sources again CAREFULLY. Reading sources carefully is not one of your strong points we know.
The expression "Almighty God" is YOUR required term. The Bible says "Mighty God or "Almighty God." SAME THING DUDE! Compare Is. 9:6 with 10:21
There is no god with God Mike. There was no god formed before or after God Mike.
Quote TO ALL: Mikeboll has dogmatically claimed that Jesus is a god who "came into being" after YHWH. Keith has corrected Mike about this many times but Mike has given Keith a deaf ear. Isaiah 43:10 explicitly says that before and after YHWH there was no God "formed." The LXX uses the Greek "ginomai" for "formed."
No god came into being before or after YHWH. Therefore, Jesus did not come into being but was always "with God" (John 1:1). Mike's only option is to deny that Jesus is a god at all. This would be a step up for him. For denying that Jesus is a god at all is better than confessing Him as a god in the "same sense" as satan.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3279NO GOD CAME INTO BEING BEFORE OR AFTER GOD MIKE!
And please don't start a thread on Christian behavior and then refer to others as "goof balls and knuckle heads." I am an educated man holding a diploma and a degree and many post graduate credits.
You on the other hand don't even know how to understand a simple time statement like in Ezekiel 37:21. Learn to know your place sir! Neither can you comprehend a simple time statement like "TODAY" in reference to the timing of Jesus' begetting at His resurrection. You have very poor comprehension skills. You infer too much from sources and yet in spite of all your defencies you have the nerve to call others "goof balls" and "knuckle heads."
You do this to cover up your own deficiencies. Intelligent people don't speak the way you speak sir.
A child can understand the statement that there was no god formed BEFORE OR AFTER God.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 08 2010,10:34) I am an educated man holding a diploma and a degree and many post graduate credits.
Hi Jack,You make the above statement, and then fault ME for expecting more from you?
And you are right, God did say there have been no other God's before or after him. But even God speaks of other "gods", right? So the real question is if Jesus is God, or "a god". Well, Jesus is the Son OF GOD and the Word OF GOD and the Anointed OF GOD and so on. So a thing that is OF another thing usually comes AFTER that first thing.
Let's see if your new-fangled definition of "monogenes" can help us out here. Jesus is the "only one AFTER his own kind". But God said there would be no God AFTER Him.
Why don't you use some of that higher learnin' you received and figure this very simple puzzle out, man!
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 07 2010,00:50) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2010,15:27) Keith,
Jack and you do not believe that the second person of the trinity was always a son? The trinitarians believe that, you know that don't you? To be a true trinitarian, means that you believe in the trinity doctrine. In the trinity doctrine, the Son is co-eternal with the Father but that is not what you believe…hence, you do not fully accept the trinity doctrine…hence, you are not true trinitarians.
KathiUnless you can prove what a "true Trinitarian" is and that they all agreed to the letter, then your statement is a false accusation.
Not to mention you need to prove that I am not sincere in my faith and belief as a Trinitarian.
This is simply an attack on the person and a false accusation of Jack and I of being dishonest about our faith.
Do "Christians" agree on every issue? Does that mean they are not a "Christian"?
You said…
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2010,20:55) Keith,
Augustine is a trinitarian and I am not, nor do I pretend to be (like some on here).
You should withdraw this false accusation unless you can prove that I am dishonest in my faith.WJ
Keith,
I am sorry that I upset you. I can not prove your sincerity or insincerity. From all that I have read on the trinity, trinitarians, and the trinity doctrine….NO ONE believes that the Son had become the divine Son IN TIME. You and Roo say that the Word BECAME the Son during the ages…IN TIME. By saying that, you say something very different than all the rest of the trinitarians that I have read or know. They ALL say that the Son was begotten BEFORE THE AGES. That is a huge difference.Roo-
You claim that you and Keith believe like Tertullian. You said:Quote Below I provide documentation that shows that Tertullian and the Apologists taught that the Word existed in two stages. Tertullian and the Apologists taught that Jesus was the Eternal Word who became Son. I posted this for Kathi last year and she has apparently forgotten about it. I showed her that the Apologist Trinitarians agree with you and me that the Word became Son.
found here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=10
Quote For Tertullian, the Word became the Son of God when it was begotten of the Father prior to creation.
found here: http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/trinity1.html#EconomicNow do you guys believe that the Son was begotten as the only begotten Son of God BEFORE creation or AFTER creation? If you say "after" then, I say that I have not read ANYONE of the early Church fathers that say that. They all say that the SON was begotten as the only begotten Son BEFORE THE AGES which means before creation.
If you guys believe that the Son BECAME the divine Son in time, then there once was a time when the Son WAS NOT.
Look what else Tertullian says:
Quote 200 AD Tertullian "[W]hen God says, 'Let there be light' [Gen. 1:3], this is the perfect nativity of the Word, while he is proceeding from God. . . . Thus, the Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even the Father himself gives witness: 'My heart has poured forth my finest Word' [Ps. 45:1Against Praxeas 7:1).
from: http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm (thanks for the link roo)That is incredible that he said that. It goes along with what I heard about the firstborn and "Let there be light." Selah!!
This is what happened to me, now about 17 years ago regarding that:
Quote I was challenged to know the meaning of the term "firstborn of all creation" by some JW's. I remember not seeing that verse before. I had always thought that the Son of God had eternally existed. I surrendered my previous views on the trinity doctrine if they were not accurate. I just wanted truth.
I began reading the gospels like there was a different emphasis that I had been missing, a different perspective…one that the Son of God was soooo apparent as a Son who was begotten of God and that was referred to as God but not equal to His Father and was a Son who took an active part in creation.
I was studying the Bible for many hours a day and not seeking extra-Biblical literature.
I wondered if I was going to have to attend a different type of church than my family since my husband was and still is a Trinitarian. I decided that as long as the church believes in the inerrancies of the scriptures, I could still attend. Also, my husband was the spiritual leader in the home and I continue going to church with him.
After 1 month of seeing the Son of God as actually born of God (not created) before creation, I was still studying alot but took a break and was teaching my son and reviewing the days of creation. I asked him what happened on day one. He said that God said "Let there be Light" and at that moment without question, I heard a whisper in my left ear say "You are the Light of the world" and I paused and just thought…WOW! How simple, could that be when the Son was born? I have tested that connection and have peace with the understanding that yes, the terms "firstborn of all creation" and "Let there be Light" are related. It has helped everything come together for me in a way that the trinity doctrine did not.
That was about 16 years ago and I haven't found any reason to disprove it.
found here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=150
I'm so glad I found that quote of Tertullian!
Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Aug. 08 2010,08:21) The trinity concept goes way further back than Tertullian. Note the three sections I bolded in red.The first points out the two persons Moses called "YHWH" in Genesis 19:24. The second one is a quotation from a manuscript which calls Jesus God. The third one says that Christ was the adviser in creation. It was the Word (i.e., the Speaker) who said, "Let US make man in OUR image."
A theology of the Holy Spirit developed slowly, largely in response to controversies over the relation of Jesus Christ to God the Father. In 325, the Council of Nicaea condemned as heresy the Arian teaching that the Son was a creature, neither equal to, nor coeternal with, the Father. ………Later pronouncements brought only one important doctrinal change, the 9th-century addition of filioque to the creed of Constantinople. That addition, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, has been a source of discord between Eastern and Western Christianity ever since.Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 08 2010,10:53) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 08 2010,10:34) I am an educated man holding a diploma and a degree and many post graduate credits.
Hi Jack,You make the above statement, and then fault ME for expecting more from you?
And you are right, God did say there have been no other God's before or after him. But even God speaks of other "gods", right? So the real question is if Jesus is God, or "a god". Well, Jesus is the Son OF GOD and the Word OF GOD and the Anointed OF GOD and so on. So a thing that is OF another thing usually comes AFTER that first thing.
Let's see if your new-fangled definition of "monogenes" can help us out here. Jesus is the "only one AFTER his own kind". But God said there would be no God AFTER Him.
Why don't you use some of that higher learnin' you received and figure this very simple puzzle out, man!
mike
Mike,My point was that you have the conscience to start a thread on christian behavior and then call people "goof balls" and "knuckleheads" who don't see scripture your way.
You can't even tell time Mike. You say that "David" in Jeremiah 30:9 is Christ. But Hebrews 8:10 says that God would make the new covenant and write His laws in their hearts and minds "AFTER those days".
What about "AFTER those days" do you not understand Mike? The new covenant of Jer. 31 is made "AFTER" that David of Jer. 30:9 Mike.
How does a person who cannot tell time make it through each day?
Calling others "goof balls" and knuckleheads" when they don't agree with you is not the way to raise the consciousness of christian behavior.
Roo
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2010,18:18) Look what else Tertullian says: Quote 200 AD Tertullian "[W]hen God says, 'Let there be light' [Gen. 1:3], this is the perfect nativity of the Word, while he is proceeding from God. . . . Thus, the Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even the Father himself gives witness: 'My heart has poured forth my finest Word' [Ps. 45:1Against Praxeas 7:1).
from: http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm (thanks for the link roo)That is incredible that he said that. It goes along with what I heard about the firstborn and "Let there be light." Selah!!
This is what happened to me, now about 17 years ago regarding that:
Quote I was challenged to know the meaning of the term "firstborn of all creation" by some JW's. I remember not seeing that verse before. I had always thought that the Son of God had eternally existed. I surrendered my previous views on the trinity doctrine if they were not accurate. I just wanted truth.
I began reading the gospels like there was a different emphasis that I had been missing, a different perspective…one that the Son of God was soooo apparent as a Son who was begotten of God and that was referred to as God but not equal to His Father and was a Son who took an active part in creation.
I was studying the Bible for many hours a day and not seeking extra-Biblical literature.
I wondered if I was going to have to attend a different type of church than my family since my husband was and still is a Trinitarian. I decided that as long as the church believes in the inerrancies of the scriptures, I could still attend. Also, my husband was the spiritual leader in the home and I continue going to church with him.
After 1 month of seeing the Son of God as actually born of God (not created) before creation, I was still studying alot but took a break and was teaching my son and reviewing the days of creation. I asked him what happened on day one. He said that God said "Let there be Light" and at that moment without question, I heard a whisper in my left ear say "You are the Light of the world" and I paused and just thought…WOW! How simple, could that be when the Son was born? I have tested that connection and have peace with the understanding that yes, the terms "firstborn of all creation" and "Let there be Light" are related. It has helped everything come together for me in a way that the trinity doctrine did not.
That was about 16 years ago and I haven't found any reason to disprove it.
found here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=150
I'm so glad I found that quote of Tertullian!
Kathi,Tertullian taught that Christ was the Word BEFORE He was begotten as Son and that He could not be called "Son" until after His incarnation. This is what Keith and I believe. So you have FALSELY accused us of "pretending" to be Trinitarians.
Quote Kaye, Tertullian, some Trinitarians and all Modalists teach that Jesus was eternally pre-existent as God, and that the title of "Son" was first applied to Jesus after his incarnation. Just as a man cannot be called a father, until after he has a son, so too Jesus cannot be called a Son until after he was physically born via incarnation. This is the gist of what Kaye is saying Tertullian taught. To support this, notice this comment by Tertullian,] and,
Quote Tertullian "For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call , by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God;" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)
http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htmTertullian and many Trinitarians taught that God was never alone but always had His "Reason" or "Word" at His side. They taught that the Word became Son. His Word began to exist as Son. God ALWAYS had His Reason (Word). His Reason did not come out of His heart as Reason but as Son.
You have become a false accuser Kathi in saying that Keith and I "pretend" to be Trinitarians!
When do you plan to get back to the scriptures? You have taken this approach because you cannot defend your views scripturally. Thus you keep appealing to the fathers.
the Roo
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 08 2010,05:09) Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 07 2010,07:46) I agree and I will confess, I was upset over something on the forum, [been and gone now], I felt like a change, so I changed my username, I'm really karmarie 
But Yes, this forum can hurt people at times, alot of the behaviour is unchristianlike and should be addressed.
Oh Wow,
You could have told us this before!!!!hmph (crys)
simplemente perdonados – que fue graciosoI hope I got that right…sometime's a change is good !
Jack said:
Quote
Mike,My point was that you have the conscience to start a thread on christian behavior and then call people "goof balls" and "knuckleheads" who don't see scripture your way.
You can't even tell time Mike. You say that "David" in Jeremiah 30:9 is Christ. But Hebrews 8:10 says that God would make the new covenant and write His laws in their hearts and minds "AFTER those days".
What about "AFTER those days" do you not understand Mike? The new covenant of Jer. 31 is made "AFTER" that David of Jer. 30:9 Mike.
How does a person who cannot tell time make it through each day?
Calling others "goof balls" and knuckleheads" when they don't agree with you is not the way to raise the consciousness of christian behavior.
Roo
Really Jack?
Are YOU, the one who told Kathi if you were her husband you would take an axe to her computer, seriously offended by my vulgar "knucklehead" and "goofball" language?
I'm sorry for "cussing" like that. My thread was never meant to imply that Christians couldn't have a sense of humor. I thought I was being funny. I take it back, now that Kathi has showed that Tertullian didn't really think what you thought he did.
I just love it when you and Keith post secular stuff to support the trinity, but then it ends up refuting it. And then YOU, who brought Tertullian up in the first place, scold Kathi about "getting back to scriptures" when she uses your own guy against you! Too funny, man. It is a repeat of Eusebius and Ignatius. You guys better stop bringing up church fathers before there's not enough of your trinity to even hold on to. Then you'd be forced to actually follow the scriptures instead of your flawed man-made doctrine. And I don't even know what you are on about Jer 30. Could you ask an actual question? Are you saying God wasn't talking about the new covenant that came to be through His Christ? Is there another "new covenant" you are aware of?
Also, you never even responded to the "only one AFTER his own kind" point of mine. God said that no God would come AFTER Him, but by your own definition of "monogenes", Jesus was AFTER Him. Doesn't that mean that Jesus CAN'T BE GOD?
peace and love to the Roo,
mikeQuote (shimmer @ Aug. 08 2010,17:15) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 08 2010,05:09) Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 07 2010,07:46) I agree and I will confess, I was upset over something on the forum, [been and gone now], I felt like a change, so I changed my username, I'm really karmarie But Yes, this forum can hurt people at times, alot of the behaviour is unchristianlike and should be addressed.
Oh Wow,
You could have told us this before!!!!hmph (crys)
simplemente perdonados – que fue graciosoI hope I got that right…sometime's a change is good !
lol
Your so SF, (so funny stolen from JA)sometimes thats true.
I had no idea it was you.your points are very logical, you should continue
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 08 2010,06:30) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2010,18:18) Look what else Tertullian says: Quote 200 AD Tertullian "[W]hen God says, 'Let there be light' [Gen. 1:3], this is the perfect nativity of the Word, while he is proceeding from God. . . . Thus, the Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even the Father himself gives witness: 'My heart has poured forth my finest Word' [Ps. 45:1Against Praxeas 7:1).
from: http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm (thanks for the link roo)That is incredible that he said that. It goes along with what I heard about the firstborn and "Let there be light." Selah!!
This is what happened to me, now about 17 years ago regarding that:
Quote I was challenged to know the meaning of the term "firstborn of all creation" by some JW's. I remember not seeing that verse before. I had always thought that the Son of God had eternally existed. I surrendered my previous views on the trinity doctrine if they were not accurate. I just wanted truth.
I began reading the gospels like there was a different emphasis that I had been missing, a different perspective…one that the Son of God was soooo apparent as a Son who was begotten of God and that was referred to as God but not equal to His Father and was a Son who took an active part in creation.
I was studying the Bible for many hours a day and not seeking extra-Biblical literature.
I wondered if I was going to have to attend a different type of church than my family since my husband was and still is a Trinitarian. I decided that as long as the church believes in the inerrancies of the scriptures, I could still attend. Also, my husband was the spiritual leader in the home and I continue going to church with him.
After 1 month of seeing the Son of God as actually born of God (not created) before creation, I was still studying alot but took a break and was teaching my son and reviewing the days of creation. I asked him what happened on day one. He said that God said "Let there be Light" and at that moment without question, I heard a whisper in my left ear say "You are the Light of the world" and I paused and just thought…WOW! How simple, could that be when the Son was born? I have tested that connection and have peace with the understanding that yes, the terms "firstborn of all creation" and "Let there be Light" are related. It has helped everything come together for me in a way that the trinity doctrine did not.
That was about 16 years ago and I haven't found any reason to disprove it.
found here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=150
I'm so glad I found that quote of Tertullian!
Kathi,Tertullian taught that Christ was the Word BEFORE He was begotten as Son and that He could not be called "Son" until after His incarnation. This is what Keith and I believe. So you have FALSELY accused us of "pretending" to be Trinitarians.
Quote Kaye, Tertullian, some Trinitarians and all Modalists teach that Jesus was eternally pre-existent as God, and that the title of "Son" was first applied to Jesus after his incarnation. Just as a man cannot be called a father, until after he has a son, so too Jesus cannot be called a Son until after he was physically born via incarnation. This is the gist of what Kaye is saying Tertullian taught. To support this, notice this comment by Tertullian,] and,
Quote Tertullian "For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call , by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God;" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)
http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htmTertullian and many Trinitarians taught that God was never alone but always had His "Reason" or "Word" at His side. They taught that the Word became Son. His Word began to exist as Son. God ALWAYS had His Reason (Word). His Reason did not come out of His heart as Reason but as Son.
You have become a false accuser Kathi in saying that Keith and I "pretend" to be Trinitarians!
When do you plan to get back to the scriptures? You have taken this approach because you cannot defend your views scripturally. Thus you keep appealing to the fathers.
the Roo
OK WJ and Roo,
I will restate what you are concerned about here:My original statement:
Quote Augustine is a trinitarian and I am not, nor do I pretend to be (like some on here). My revised statement:
Augustine is a trinitarian and I am not, nor do I pretend to be like some on here, imo, since I consider trinitarians to be those who adhere to the trinity doctrine to be the true trinitarians which includes the agreement that the Son was co-eternal.Now did you want me to bring up ALL your posts where you have falsely accused me of worshiping a pagan god or called me an Arian?? How about all of these false accusations from little roo:
Quote Yours and Mike's views are thoroughy pagan and if I were your real husband I would take an ax to your computer. I feel my comment was restrained because Jesus used harsher terms to speak about those who denied Him. Jesus said that y
our father is the devil. I said that you and Mike are spiritual husband and wife.The truth is staring you and Mike in the face and yet your so against it that you even belittle the Father as you do the Son by making the Father out as some god like in Greek mythology. It has been shown you repeatedly that the word "begotten" in Psalm 2:7 is a reference to the reusrrection and exaltation of Jesus. You have spit on the truth. Mike has been shown repeatedly that "yalad" is used figuratively in scripture and he mocks it so he can cling to his pagan view of God.
The "Jesus" you say you believe in is not the Jesus of scripture. The "Father" you confess is also not the Father of scripture!
I will re-word what I said. You and Mike are two of a kind. Is that better? That's the best I can do.
found here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….D=12736
Sadly there appears to be a huge log in your eyes.
Hope for a better tomorrow!
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 09 2010,09:20) OK WJ and Roo,
I will restate what you are concerned about here:My original statement:
Quote
Augustine is a trinitarian and I am not, nor do I pretend to be (like some on here).My revised statement:
Augustine is a trinitarian and I am not, nor do I pretend to be like some on here, imo, since I consider trinitarians to be those who adhere to the trinity doctrine to be the true trinitarians which includes the agreement that the Son was co-eternal.Now did you want me to bring up ALL your posts where you have falsely accused me of worshiping a pagan god or called me an Arian?? How about all of these false accusations from little roo:
Quote
Yours and Mike's views are thoroughy pagan and if I were your real husband I would take an ax to your computer. I feel my comment was restrained because Jesus used harsher terms to speak about those who denied Him. Jesus said that your father is the devil. I said that you and Mike are spiritual husband and wife.The truth is staring you and Mike in the face and yet your so against it that you even belittle the Father as you do the Son by making the Father out as some god like in Greek mythology. It has been shown you repeatedly that the word "begotten" in Psalm 2:7 is a reference to the reusrrection and exaltation of Jesus. You have spit on the truth. Mike has been shown repeatedly that "yalad" is used figuratively in scripture and he mocks it so he can cling to his pagan view of God.
The "Jesus" you say you believe in is not the Jesus of scripture. The "Father" you confess is also not the Father of scripture!
I will re-word what I said. You and Mike are two of a kind. Is that better? That's the best I can do.
found here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….D=12736
Sadly there appears to be a huge log in your eyes.
Hope for a better tomorrow!
I sure wish he'd remove that log. It blocks his vision, and he keeps poking my eye as he's trying to remove the splinter!Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 09 2010,09:56) Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 08 2010,17:15) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 08 2010,05:09) Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 07 2010,07:46) I agree and I will confess, I was upset over something on the forum, [been and gone now], I felt like a change, so I changed my username, I'm really karmarie But Yes, this forum can hurt people at times, alot of the behaviour is unchristianlike and should be addressed.
Oh Wow,
You could have told us this before!!!!hmph (crys)
simplemente perdonados – que fue graciosoI hope I got that right…sometime's a change is good !
lol
Your so SF, (so funny stolen from JA)sometimes thats true.
I had no idea it was you.your points are very logical, you should continue
Thank you.hi
what is that Christians do ?
i think it is searching for truth of God,knowledge in is word,and accepting the Word as being just what it is ;the truth.
if we have doubts do not try to teach because it would take one second to a real believer to notice you ,
because you would show truth,but if you looking for answers ,request and pose clear question,then wait and see.
then respond.
Pierre
Terrarica,
Half of the people here are here because they believe they have some sort of "revelation' from God. They are cult starters, looking for 'followers'.
Others are here because they are housebound or similar
Others are here searching for the 'truth' which they will not find because most here believe they have the 'truth' though all different.
Some are here to help others, that was my first reason, helping bod.
Maybe also there is a deeper reason, some people meet here, become spiritual friends, that would be a good thing.
Anyway, finding 'truth' here ? Maybe one or two have it right.
Quote (shimmer @ Nov. 13 2010,10:12) Terrarica, Half of the people here are here because they believe they have some sort of "revelation' from God. They are cult starters, looking for 'followers'.
Others are here because they are housebound or similar
Others are here searching for the 'truth' which they will not find because most here believe they have the 'truth' though all different.
Some are here to help others, that was my first reason, helping bod.
Maybe also there is a deeper reason, some people meet here, become spiritual friends, that would be a good thing.
Anyway, finding 'truth' here ? Maybe one or two have it right.
Hi Pierre,And who are those "two"?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
