Jesus name people of new zealand

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 19 2009,18:20)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 18 2009,16:18) But wasn’t it cool to see t8 mention NAZIs so quickly?  He didn’t even go via Stalin or Pol Pot. Stuart Thanks, not sure if it is cool, but if you think so, then I don't mind being accused of that.

You must appreciate that my comment was made in the context of the 'rule' of internet discussion that the first one to mention Hitler or the NAZIs has automatically conceded the argument.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 20 2009,08:19)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 19 2009,03:26) Hi and welcome back WIT, I agree with personal choice. What are you up to? Thanks, but I am not really back.  I was just peeking in, and I somehow ended up responding Stu's latest pronouncements.  I will probably fade back “into the shadows”, (as you say), when my current exchange with Stu comes to an end. These days I am stepping way back from the detailed doctrinal debates/research that I have engaged in for years to look at the bigger picture.  From that standpoint, the Christian bible, and Christianity itself, is beginning to look too small to contain/describe the God of the universe. I trust that you are hard at work searching the scriptures for all the answers, great and small.  Happy reading!

Anyone who searches with a properly open mind is to be commended (change the spelling to 'condemned' in the opinion of t8 and probably Nick).

In the big picture, the Judeo-christian god is too small a deity for the scale of the universe.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (david @ Feb. 20 2009,15:11)

Quote the Christian bible, and Christianity itself, is beginning to look too small to contain/describe the God of the universe. –WIT Now I understand why you and Stu have become buddies.  Have you met Dirty?  He also hates the JW's and the Bible.  You two would get along great.   Quote If you post a sign on your property stating that you do not allow solicitors, Just to jump back into reality for a second, JW's do not solicit anything.  I think there used to be “no JW's” signs, which would work for you, but they were illegal I believe and no longer exist.

I do not hate JWs. I hate what their idiotic beliefs have done to them.

What if the visiting JWs really were solicitors?

Stuart

[WhatIsTrue]

David wrote:

Quote

Now I understand why you and Stu have become buddies.  Have you met Dirty?  He also hates the JW's and the Bible.  You two would get along great.

Wow.  Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed?  You're jumping to some very unwarranted conclusions.

First of all, Stu and I are not buddies.  He's a devout athiest and I think that he's put too much faith in the physical world.  I understand his skepticism of the “spiritual realm” – a term that I am sure he would say has no real definition – but I don't share it.  I am sure that he would laugh at my “imaginary friend” as much as he scoffs at yours.

Second, I don't hate JWs.  In fact, the only reason I posted at all was to defend JWs right to freely spread their message, and freely practice their beliefs.  Just because I don't share their beliefs does not mean I hate them.  I just think that they are wrong on several major points.

Third, I don't hate the bible.  I just find parts of it confusing and/or unacceptable.  As a whole, I still find a lot of good ancient wisdom contained within it.  I just no longer deem every word as a holy utterance from God.

David wrote:

Quote

Just to jump back into reality for a second, JW's do not solicit anything.  I think there used to be “no JW's” signs, which would work for you, but they were illegal I believe and no longer exist.

According to Webster:

Quote

solicit transitive verb 1 a: to make petition to : entreat b: to approach with a request or plea 2: to urge (as one's cause) strongly 3 a: to entice or lure especially into evil b: to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute 4: to try to obtain by usually urgent requests or pleas intransitive verb

I think that number 2 fits in nicely with what you do.  Or would you dispute that you urge people strongly to turn from their wrong doing and follow Jehovah?

In any case, if you still object to the term “solicit”, exchange the “no solicitation” sign with a “no trespassing” sign, and my point remains in tact.  If a JW violates someone's posted request not to have strangers knock on their door, then the JW is in the wrong.

Fortunately for you, most people do not post such signs on their property.  I don't, and I have no desire to chat with a JW, a Mormon, or any other door-to-door salesman.

(I am sure that you will take offense to my use of the term “door-to-door salesman” but that's exactly what you are doing.  You are making a sales pitch for your religion – complete with brochures and rehearsed lines and answers.  It may ultimately be for a higher cause, in your opinion, but it is little different from what a Mormon, a Southern baptist, or a vaccum salesman would do.  You are all trying to get someone to “buy into” something that they would otherwise not seek out on their own.  I don't fault you for it, but I'd like to think that I recognize it for what it is.)

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2009,18:55)

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 20 2009,08:19) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 19 2009,03:26) Hi and welcome back WIT, I agree with personal choice. What are you up to? Thanks, but I am not really back.  I was just peeking in, and I somehow ended up responding Stu's latest pronouncements.  I will probably fade back “into the shadows”, (as you say), when my current exchange with Stu comes to an end. These days I am stepping way back from the detailed doctrinal debates/research that I have engaged in for years to look at the bigger picture.  From that standpoint, the Christian bible, and Christianity itself, is beginning to look too small to contain/describe the God of the universe. I trust that you are hard at work searching the scriptures for all the answers, great and small.  Happy reading! Anyone who searches with a properly open mind is to be commended (change the spelling to 'condemned' in the opinion of t8 and probably Nick). In the big picture, the Judeo-christian god is too small a deity for the scale of the universe.   Stuart

Strange words for someone who doesn't believe in a deity of the universe.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 21 2009,02:24)

I just no longer deem every word as a holy utterance from God.

The bible doesn't claim that every word is God's own words. In fact the words of God are recorded as are the words of men both righteous and wicked.

The gospels are eye witness accounts and in other books men wrote what they saw in visions and other books record what God told the hearer/author to write down. Usually each book explains the context. e.g,

Luke 1
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

No mention that the book of Luke is the very words of God.

Inspiration is not possession. God wasn't doing automatic writing through people, rather God works through people.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2009,13:48)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 20 2009,18:55) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 20 2009,08:19) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 19 2009,03:26) Hi and welcome back WIT, I agree with personal choice. What are you up to? Thanks, but I am not really back.  I was just peeking in, and I somehow ended up responding Stu's latest pronouncements.  I will probably fade back “into the shadows”, (as you say), when my current exchange with Stu comes to an end. These days I am stepping way back from the detailed doctrinal debates/research that I have engaged in for years to look at the bigger picture.  From that standpoint, the Christian bible, and Christianity itself, is beginning to look too small to contain/describe the God of the universe. I trust that you are hard at work searching the scriptures for all the answers, great and small.  Happy reading! Anyone who searches with a properly open mind is to be commended (change the spelling to 'condemned' in the opinion of t8 and probably Nick). In the big picture, the Judeo-christian god is too small a deity for the scale of the universe.   Stuart Strange words for someone who doesn't believe in a deity of the universe.

I'm talking about the Judeo-christian mythological Friend in the sky. You know, the one that knows everything but had to call to find out where Adam had got to. Why are my words strange? I could equally say that Sherlock Holmes' techniques were well suited to the crimes he solved, without deluding myself that he existed.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 21 2009,02:24)

Stu and I are not buddies.  He's a devout athiest and I think that he's put too much faith in the physical world.  I understand his skepticism of the “spiritual realm” – a term that I am sure he would say has no real definition – but I don't share it.  I am sure that he would laugh at my “imaginary friend” as much as he scoffs at yours.

I do not do things on faith.

I do agree that I would scoff at your Imaginary Friend.

I consider myself more spiritual than christians because my view of the universe is not clouded by slavish literal belief in ridiculous tenets. We both probably claim to see beauty. I think the believer's beauty is ugly.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2009,13:51)

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 21 2009,02:24) I just no longer deem every word as a holy utterance from God. The bible doesn't claim that every word is God's own words. In fact the words of God are recorded as are the words of men both righteous and wicked. The gospels are eye witness accounts and in other books men wrote what they saw in visions and other books record what God told the hearer/author to write down. Usually each book explains the context. e.g, Luke 1 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. No mention that the book of Luke is the very words of God. Inspiration is not possession. God wasn't doing automatic writing through people, rather God works through people.

So all these zealots who decided what god's words are have given you this impossible mess of determining the difference between allegory and literal account.

Given that most christians cannot even tell the difference between reality and fantasy, no wonder there are 34,000 versions of christianity, each the One True Path.

Stuart

[theodorej]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 21 2009,18:43)

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2009,13:51) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 21 2009,02:24) I just no longer deem every word as a holy utterance from God. The bible doesn't claim that every word is God's own words. In fact the words of God are recorded as are the words of men both righteous and wicked. The gospels are eye witness accounts and in other books men wrote what they saw in visions and other books record what God told the hearer/author to write down. Usually each book explains the context. e.g, Luke 1 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. No mention that the book of Luke is the very words of God. Inspiration is not possession. God wasn't doing automatic writing through people, rather God works through people. So all these zealots who decided what god's words are have given you this impossible mess of determining the difference between allegory and literal account. Given that most christians cannot even tell the difference between reality and fantasy, no wonder there are 34,000 versions of christianity, each the One True Path. Stuart

Greetings Stu…..It is a pleasure to once again read your incitive rants that demonstrate you faith in Man and his science…..You are truly an interlectual vandal who knows no bounds when it comes to criticism of the faith that many hold near and dear… and,”I might say unsubstantiated at that”,

[david]

Quote

I think that number 2 fits in nicely with what you do.  Or would you dispute that you urge people strongly to turn from their wrong doing and follow Jehovah?

In the U.S. soliciting is a crime.  Yet, JW do not go to jail.  How do you explain this?

The U.S. supreme court (and the Cdn Charter of Rights, and probably other countries) have decided that what we do is not solicitation.

Quote

In any case, if you still object to the term “solicit”, exchange the “no solicitation” sign with a “no trespassing” sign, and my point remains in tact.  If a JW violates someone's posted request not to have strangers knock on their door, then the JW is in the wrong.

Yes, “no trespassing” are a different thing. But I pretty much ignore the “no soliciting” signs as I am in no way soliciting.

[david]

Quote

JW's do not have a monopoly on the whole blood transfusion thing.

As far as I can tell, bloodless surgery is the future, because it is much safer. The difference between a good surgeon and a bad one is the amount of blood loss. More and more people are jumping on this bandwagon and demanding the best in medical care. The complications and risks are lessened greatly when you don't have to accept blood. Hospitals in the U.S. and around the world are beginning to see this.
http://www.noblood.org/communi….es.html

[Stu]

Quote (theodorej @ Feb. 22 2009,02:16)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 21 2009,18:43) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2009,13:51) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 21 2009,02:24) I just no longer deem every word as a holy utterance from God. The bible doesn't claim that every word is God's own words. In fact the words of God are recorded as are the words of men both righteous and wicked. The gospels are eye witness accounts and in other books men wrote what they saw in visions and other books record what God told the hearer/author to write down. Usually each book explains the context. e.g, Luke 1 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. No mention that the book of Luke is the very words of God. Inspiration is not possession. God wasn't doing automatic writing through people, rather God works through people. So all these zealots who decided what god's words are have given you this impossible mess of determining the difference between allegory and literal account. Given that most christians cannot even tell the difference between reality and fantasy, no wonder there are 34,000 versions of christianity, each the One True Path. Stuart Greetings Stu…..It is a pleasure to once again read your incitive rants that demonstrate you faith in Man and his science…..You are truly an interlectual vandal who knows no bounds when it comes to criticism of the faith that many hold near and dear… and,”I might say unsubstantiated at that”,

Hi theodorej

Would you care to substantiate your claim that my criticism is 'unsubstantiated'?

Here is a concrete example:
“No mention that the book of Luke is the very words of God.”

I say that is nonsense.

Now, what substantiation do you think I owe? There is none given for the original claim, so at the very least my assertion is on an equal footing with the original statement.

Stuart

[theodorej]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 22 2009,16:00)

Quote (theodorej @ Feb. 22 2009,02:16) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 21 2009,18:43) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2009,13:51) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 21 2009,02:24) I just no longer deem every word as a holy utterance from God. The bible doesn't claim that every word is God's own words. In fact the words of God are recorded as are the words of men both righteous and wicked. The gospels are eye witness accounts and in other books men wrote what they saw in visions and other books record what God told the hearer/author to write down. Usually each book explains the context. e.g, Luke 1 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. No mention that the book of Luke is the very words of God. Inspiration is not possession. God wasn't doing automatic writing through people, rather God works through people. So all these zealots who decided what god's words are have given you this impossible mess of determining the difference between allegory and literal account. Given that most christians cannot even tell the difference between reality and fantasy, no wonder there are 34,000 versions of christianity, each the One True Path. Stuart Greetings Stu…..It is a pleasure to once again read your incitive rants that demonstrate you faith in Man and his science…..You are truly an interlectual vandal who knows no bounds when it comes to criticism of the faith that many hold near and dear… and,”I might say unsubstantiated at that”, Hi theodorej Would you care to substantiate your claim that my criticism is 'unsubstantiated'? Here is a concrete example: “No mention that the book of Luke is the very words of God.” I say that is nonsense. Now, what substantiation do you think I owe?  There is none given for the original claim, so at the very least my assertion is on an equal footing with the original statement. Stuart

Greetings Stu…..I cannot help but agree with your accounting of the number of variations of christianity,however ,I must say,”there is only one form of true christianity and it is the form that emulates the good news that Jesus espoused….” Someday soon his government will be established here on earth (Thy Kingdom Come)and there will be no end to the peace and tranquility and productivity it will bring….In the meanwhile we have an obligatory purpose to know and understand God and his statutes….The unfortunate reality is that many interpret Gods word verbatum and miss the spirit of the written word and for thaat reason we have so many interpretation that are wrong….yours being one of them….

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 21 2009,18:43)

So all these zealots who decided what god's words are have given you this impossible mess of determining the difference between allegory and literal account. Given that most christians cannot even tell the difference between reality and fantasy, no wonder there are 34,000 versions of christianity, each the One True Path. Stuart

Actually I almost agree with you Stu.

You need to spiritually discern that which is written and understand the context and what the message is. Sometimes we see parables which are easy to understand physical examples that demonstrate something deeper. Not all have understanding and many have opinions.

But the truth is revealed to those who seek it for pure motive. People use scripture to push all manor of doctrine and bias, just as people will use anything else that might be useful to their own purposes. It seems money is one of the biggest motives and power is another.

[Stu]

Quote (theodorej @ Feb. 23 2009,01:19)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 22 2009,16:00) Quote (theodorej @ Feb. 22 2009,02:16) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 21 2009,18:43) Quote (t8 @ Feb. 21 2009,13:51) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 21 2009,02:24) I just no longer deem every word as a holy utterance from God. The bible doesn't claim that every word is God's own words. In fact the words of God are recorded as are the words of men both righteous and wicked. The gospels are eye witness accounts and in other books men wrote what they saw in visions and other books record what God told the hearer/author to write down. Usually each book explains the context. e.g, Luke 1 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. No mention that the book of Luke is the very words of God. Inspiration is not possession. God wasn't doing automatic writing through people, rather God works through people. So all these zealots who decided what god's words are have given you this impossible mess of determining the difference between allegory and literal account. Given that most christians cannot even tell the difference between reality and fantasy, no wonder there are 34,000 versions of christianity, each the One True Path. Stuart Greetings Stu…..It is a pleasure to once again read your incitive rants that demonstrate you faith in Man and his science…..You are truly an interlectual vandal who knows no bounds when it comes to criticism of the faith that many hold near and dear… and,”I might say unsubstantiated at that”, Hi theodorej Would you care to substantiate your claim that my criticism is 'unsubstantiated'? Here is a concrete example: “No mention that the book of Luke is the very words of God.” I say that is nonsense. Now, what substantiation do you think I owe?  There is none given for the original claim, so at the very least my assertion is on an equal footing with the original statement. Stuart Greetings Stu…..I cannot help but agree with your accounting of the number of variations of christianity,however ,I must say,”there is only one form of true christianity and it is the form that emulates the good news that Jesus espoused….” Someday soon his government will be established here on earth (Thy Kingdom Come)and there will be no end to the peace and tranquility and productivity it will bring….In the meanwhile we have an obligatory purpose to know and understand God and his statutes….The unfortunate reality is that many interpret Gods word verbatum and miss the spirit of the written word and for thaat reason we have so many interpretation that are wrong….yours being one of them….

So your interpretation of Jesus's message is the One True Path?

Do you believe in democracy?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 23 2009,18:16)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 21 2009,18:43) So all these zealots who decided what god's words are have given you this impossible mess of determining the difference between allegory and literal account. Given that most christians cannot even tell the difference between reality and fantasy, no wonder there are 34,000 versions of christianity, each the One True Path. Stuart Actually I almost agree with you Stu. You need to spiritually discern that which is written and understand the context and what the message is. Sometimes we see parables which are easy to understand physical examples that demonstrate something deeper. Not all have understanding and many have opinions. But the truth is revealed to those who seek it for pure motive. People use scripture to push all manor of doctrine and bias, just as people will use anything else that might be useful to their own purposes. It seems money is one of the biggest motives and power is another.

So that accounts the Johns and for Paul, who quite clearly had his own motives and a different view from Jesus. What about Jesus. Can you analyse his motive?

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Hi Stu.

I believe the motive for all 3 was the Kingdom of God. All 3 were crucified and persecuted, so I would hardly think that they were in it for worldly comforts, but for a greater purpose beyond this life and age.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2009,22:27)

Hi Stu. I believe the motive for all 3 was the Kingdom of God. All 3 were crucified and persecuted, so I would hardly think that they were in it for worldly comforts, but for a greater purpose beyond this life and age.

Yes, delusion can do strange things to people.

Stuart

[Jesus name follower of Christ]

I will pray for them in jesus name. we (my church,and the body of christ apostolic pentecostal holieness) believe in oneness and jesus name baptism

[Author]

Posts