Will The Real Christians Please Stand UP.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Partygirl

 

I believe in every verse you quoted...and every other line of scripture. Every single one!

I hope you don't like any of your clothes.

Jude 1:23b
. . .coupled with a fear of God, hating even the clothes stained by the flesh.

You should probably go around in sack cloth and periodically burn them all because they were contaminated by sin from you touching them.
(or realize this was one of those books entered into the NT canon either by mistake or some evil intention, and just ignore the whole thing as a weird, superstitious forgery)

edit on 24-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Works do not lead to salvation. All our righteousness is a filthy rags to God. Isaiah 64:6. A day will come when God wipes the earth of the works of man. What remains will be what we are at our essence. The darkness will be removed. An acorn is a good analogy. The oak tree is contained within the acorn. The essence is the information that produces the ultimate form. The form is only the vehicle.

Zephaniah 1

2 “I will sweep away everything
from the face of the earth,”
declares the LORD.
3 “I will sweep away both man and beast;
I will sweep away the birds in the sky
and the fish in the sea—
and the idols that cause the wicked to stumble.”

Zephaniah 2

3 Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land,
you who do what he commands.
Seek righteousness, seek humility;
perhaps you will be sheltered
on the day of the LORD’s anger.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by CynicalDrivel

 

WOW! I don't know how you are able to live with a name like CynicalDrivel, when your post had no touch of the cynical about it and it certainly wasn't drivel. All excellent points. Thank you.

It's not me, but God who is good. I, without God, am a Cynical mess because that is my nature.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Dear jmdewey60,

Questions concerning the present state of scriptural analysis and authority seem out of place in this thread. Another time perhaps?

With respect,
Charles1952

Go over to the "Why God's Word The Bible IS Infallible!" thread where we have been discussing that a bit.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Works do not lead to salvation. All our righteousness is a filthy rags to God. Isaiah 64:6. A day will come when God wipes the earth of the works of man. What remains will be what we are at our essence. The darkness will be removed. An acorn is a good analogy. The oak tree is contained within the acorn. The essence is the information that produces the ultimate form. The form is only the vehicle.

Works, according to Paul was those things in the Old Law which did not contribute to true holiness, that were just outward signs. God deeds and a good life were not what Paul called, works.
Filthy rags was what was said as Israel was being carted off by the Assyrians and was a special case which does not apply to us in general.
The rest is just your own eschatology you created in your own mind, detached from anything biblical and maybe influenced by other luciferian doctrines which you promote.

Originally posted by Garfee My point, and so many other's is that there are so many contradictions, evil deeds committed by those in the name of their god (often ordered by their god).

Contradictions are mostly out-of-context arguments. And the assumptions are that these people who reject the Bible are often using is that they have a full grasp of the subject matter (rare), they hold different definitions for things than does the context (frequent), they are under the assumption that their own morals are better than what they are reading (generally only applied to rigid religions, as they assume that this is--but hey, a lot of Christians are, too)--and this is by no means a full list of what complicates these assumptions. Now, do I believe that that their reaction is useless? No! Not at all. But as 1 comedian put it, this is the only religion that will have you, from it's basic text, that will accept you no matter how wrong you've been. It's not about what you do, it's about whose you are. This does NOT give us a license to feely practice bad behaviour--that's something entirely different. People with the concept that you've got to be good enough before going to God have the cart before the horse.

There are also very nasty things written about normal, everyday things in life which make no sense whatsoever. The holy bible is pretty much a freaky, bizarre book of words which you either take wholly as the truth, or balk at in horror and shun for being completely about bad, irrelevant things. So many Christians tell me there is much they do not agree with in the bible, yet without it, would they have known of this Jesus? So, they choose what make personal sense to them. But how can they do that?

Since this world is a nasty messy place, I'm not going to follow a religion that doesn't leave darker moments for us to struggle with. And if there's no hope for a man like David (a man after God's own heart), who was an adulterer and murderer, then are chances are there for me? I wasn't married when I fist started having sex--nor did I care about gender. (College, what can I say?)

Without the bible, would anyone know of Jesus?

Considering that there is a tribe in South America that there was no proof of ever having read the Bible, who were, as far as I can discern, Christians, without evidence of ever having a Bible, before the Catholics met them down there? Or all the writing done by men like Origin, founding fathers in Christianity? The Bible is most used because it's convenient, and it was agreed upon as "Cannon". It is by far not the only text out there. People tend to forget that the Bible is not one book, but many consolidated into 1 binding. You're not getting 1 piece of evidence, but an ANTHOLOGY of evidence, and not even the entirety of it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Works do not lead to salvation. All our righteousness is a filthy rags to God. Isaiah 64:6. A day will come when God wipes the earth of the works of man. What remains will be what we are at our essence. The darkness will be removed. An acorn is a good analogy. The oak tree is contained within the acorn. The essence is the information that produces the ultimate form. The form is only the vehicle.

Works, according to Paul was those things in the Old Law which did not contribute to true holiness, that were just outward signs. God deeds and a good life were not what Paul called, works.
Filthy rags was what was said as Israel was being carted off by the Assyrians and was a special case which does not apply to us in general.
The rest is just your own eschatology you created in your own mind, detached from anything biblical and maybe influenced by other luciferian doctrines which you promote.

You may be reading James and seeing a contradiction with Paul. Nevertheless, there is no contradiction. We can resolve the paradox with this verse.

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5, NIV.)

Apart from being 'in' Christ, you can do nothing. Faith is the key. Faith produces trust and a willingness to submit to the authority of God in our lives. Being in Christ is taking on His name. An name in the Bible represents character. Apart from faith, there can be no Christ-like Character.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


NO!
The contradiction is your interpretation.
I see no contradiction in the NT.
You know nothing of what you write about.
James has a slightly different terminology but once you understand that, it is not contradictory of Paul.
I think you should stick to your eschatology delusions and stay out of theology since you are so clueless.

reply to post by jmdewey60

The rest is just your own eschatology you created in your own mind, detached from anything biblical and maybe influenced by other luciferian doctrines which you promote.

As you take pot shots, I will continue to ask you to back your claims of my words up with a quote and context. Name calling is not necessary and only creates ground for the other person to stand against you in a debate. If I have deserved the shot, then back it with context so we can all learn from our mistakes.

As for faith, works cannot arise from pride. Faith and pride are opposites. Works apart from faith are dead, just as faith apart from works are dead. When Abram received the letter 'Hey' in his name, becoming Abraham, it was because of his faith and not the works of offering a human sacrifice. God obviously did not desire the sacrifice. The letter hey is the Ancient-Hebrew pictograph of a man standing with his arms outstretched to God in humility. It means to behold a great work. The work of producing faith is not our work. It is God's work in and through us. Apart from this work, we cannot produce our own faith. We produce works from our faith.

The parent root of Hey is the word Shine. To shine represents the Hey and the Shepherd's staff. The Shepherd is Christ. LINK

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

NO!
The contradiction is your interpretation.
I see no contradiction in the NT.
You know nothing of what you write about.
James has a slightly different terminology but once you understand that, it is not contradictory of Paul.

edit on 24-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Which is precicely what I was saying. The apparent difference between Paul and James has been debated for years. LINK James "seems" to be saying works, while Paul says faith. There is no paradox since both are a requirement from God. Faith without works is dead. Works cannot arise apart from faith. No paradox, as you say. I agree. Hillel's seven rules of rightly dividing scripture are at play anytime there is a perceived paradox in scripture. LINK

6. Kayotze bo mimekom akhar (Analogy made from another passage)

Two passages may seem to conflict until compared with a third, which has points of general though not necessarily verbal similarity.

You choose to be defensive with bias against me. Why is this? The best method of discourse is to remove bias. Speak for the other person in the manner in which they should be speaking for themselves. This requires the removal of bias and the addition of context and love. Love is patient and kind. It preserves and honors dignity. 1 Corinthians 13.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

As you take pot shots, I will continue to ask you to back your claims of my words up with a quote and context. Name calling is not necessary and only creates ground for the other person to stand against you in a debate. If I have deserved the shot, then back it with context so we can all learn from our mistakes.

Pride is defending yourself.
If you cared about the truth, you would be defending what you think is true about what you wrote earlier.
I did not call you a name, that I recall. I said I was not going to since it would not conform to ATS standards of conduct.
What I was referring to in that instance is your inability to not find a problem with saying you did not say something, when it is right there in the very post you are claiming you did not say it, in the quote of me in your post, where I quote your earlier post. There are several words to describe a person like that but I restrained myself.
Any "pot shots" directed at you are very well deserved and there are far too few of them. I have been slack at making as many as I should have for the last couple months but I intend to rectify that shortage by pursuing you where before I only commented when you commented on one of my posts.
Your expressions of ego and megalomania as you exhibit here only encourages me more. You do not back up your delusional prophetic pronouncements because you can not and there is no god who will step up on your behalf to vindicate you because it is all your own fabrication.
As for people confronting me, I wish they would. I encourage everyone who feels able, to challenge me on every word I write. For you to think I fear that is another indication of your foolishness.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

The best method of discourse is to remove bias. Speak for the other person in the manner in which they should be speaking for themselves.

This is the thesis of the book you published which your user name is a plug for. It is your version of mind control.
This is an open board and posters do not have to conform to a set structure of how they post. I choose to do things as I see fit. I don't restrict my thinking to a specified structure of someone else's making.
You try to do that (mind control) with sheer volume of output to overwhelm the reader while you say nothing, but warp the reader's thinking just by trying to comprehend this mass of words.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

As you take pot shots, I will continue to ask you to back your claims of my words up with a quote and context. Name calling is not necessary and only creates ground for the other person to stand against you in a debate. If I have deserved the shot, then back it with context so we can all learn from our mistakes.

Pride is defending yourself.
If you cared about the truth, you would be defending what you think is true about what you wrote earlier.
I did not call you a name, that I recall. I said I was not going to since it would not conform to ATS standards of conduct.
What I was referring to in that instance is your inability to not find a problem with saying you did not say something, when it is right there in the very post you are claiming you did not say it, in the quote of me in your post, where I quote your earlier post. There are several words to describe a person like that but I restrained myself.
Any "pot shots" directed at you are very well deserved and there are far too few of them. I have been slack at making as many as I should have for the last couple months but I intend to rectify that shortage by pursuing you where before I only commented when you commented on one of my posts.
Your expressions of ego and megalomania as you exhibit here only encourages me more. You do not back up your delusional prophetic pronouncements because you can not and there is no god who will step up on your behalf to vindicate you because it is all your own fabrication.
As for people confronting me, I wish they would. I encourage everyone who feels able, to challenge me on every word I write. For you to think I fear that is another indication of your foolishness.

edit on 24-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Love requires patience and kindness while respecting the dignity of the other person. I will maintain mine and speak to the subject only. Simply quote me on a topic and then tell your side. Provide context. It is clear you have a differing viewpoint. Defend it with context and not attack. We can both grow from the experience. If you want me to join you in your anger, I will simply say that I forgive you and go on with a discussion based on respect. I have no empty spot that needs to be filled with anything other than love for God and others.

Start with your largest issue with anything I have said on ATS. All my words are there. You can also quote me form my blog. LINK If you can find a hole in my understanding of truth and I can see the same hole, I will amend my position as I have done countless times in the past. I have been doing this since 1996 and my views from then to now are worlds apart by growth and maturity through the years. Many people have put me up against a wall and changed my mind. Few have succeeded in this by attacking me to fill themselves up with more anger. Typically, it comes from the ones who fill me with the the love they already possess. Love is the answer. Pride is what elevates one person against another. I won't join you in that.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

The best method of discourse is to remove bias. Speak for the other person in the manner in which they should be speaking for themselves.

This is the thesis of the book you published which your user name is a plug for. It is your version of mind control.
This is an open board and posters do not have to conform to a set structure of how they post. I choose to do things as I see fit. I don't restrict my thinking to a specified structure of someone else's making.
You try to do that (mind control) with sheer volume of output to overwhelm the reader while you say nothing, but warp the reader's thinking just by trying to comprehend this mass of words.

edit on 24-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

The book I wrote (The Superior Educator, A Calm and Assertive Approach to Classroom Management and Large Group Motivation) is about education and the wisdom of Confucius as applied to the classroom. The book that I quoted from about bias is a book called Verbal Judo by George Thompson. His book mirrors mine in that it seeks to preserve the dignity of the other person with proper communication that sticks to virtue. Confucius had words to say concerning this topic. Virtue is tied to the love of God. My passion in life is to learn more of God's wisdom. When you teach, you learn twice. Learning is difficult when pride gets in the way.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

The book that I quoted from about bias is a book called Verbal Judo by George Thompson.

I remember reading the same thing on some other sub-forum, in one of your posts.
I was looking at your posts you made before you decided for some reason to start posting on this sub-forum (I looked after you made your OP here).
You started right out by defending the Old Testament God and then down the road on that thread, said Jesus was another portrayal of the same God we otherwise know as Yahweh.
That makes me think you are of Satan.
Jesus was not a murderous genocidal ego maniac. That's my opinion.
You saying he is, make s you my enemy and you always will be until you accept the real God and the real Jesus.
Now if you wanted to just practice your quasi-Judaism in quiet, you would not be my enemy. The fact that you promote your strange beliefs as if they are facts (while also claiming to be a Christian) forces me to confront you with the truth. I don't expect you to accept them and that is up to you.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["The book I wrote (The Superior Educator, A Calm and Assertive Approach to Classroom Management and Large Group Motivation) is about education and the wisdom of Confucius as applied to the classroom. The book that I quoted from about bias is a book called Verbal Judo by George Thompson. His book mirrors mine in that it seeks to preserve the dignity of the other person with proper communication that sticks to virtue. Confucius had words to say concerning this topic. Virtue is tied to the love of God. My passion in life is to learn more of God's wisdom. When you teach, you learn twice. Learning is difficult when pride gets in the way."]


Still another expression of zombified fanatism, originating from a religious psychosis or sub-standard intelligence.

To the decent and functional readers of this forum, I apologize for the excessive and irrational language in my recent post, but I have myself now for two years regurlarly been exposed to such a language from invasive evangelists, whose arguments can't stand by themselves, and where said evangelists instead resort to character-attacks (which are ignored by pro-christian biased 'moderators').

I have no intentions of participating, or even being a 'member' of such a forum, but unfortunately it seems impossible to terminate an ATS membership officially. So dramatic as it may appear to be, my only option is to get myself banned, which hopefully will be soon.

(As I have posted identical posts to this in several places it should do the trick. Christian evangelists are notorious for their inability to handle criticism or opposition, so there will be an abundance of complaints helping my aim

reply to post by jmdewey60

You started right out by defending the Old Testament God and then down the road on that thread, said Jesus was another portrayal of the same God we otherwise know as Yahweh.
That makes me think you are of Satan.

Now that your view finally comes out, present the why of your platform. Why is YHWH (Yod, Hey, Vav, Hey) Satan? I can only point you toward the Phoenician script, which originates the Hebrew language, to show you that the three letters of the language are pictographs that represent "Behold the Hand, Behold the nail." Ancient Hebrew.org

This is my first bit of evidence that Jesus is what He claimed (One of the Three from the Trinity) as part of the One God. My second piece of evidence comes from the fact that all the supposed atrocities in the OT are actually God defending truth, honor, love, justice and mercy. The Matthew Henry commentaries are valuable here because they clear up our misunderstandings of antiquity.

My next piece of evidence comes from the fact that Jesus references the God of the OT as the Father. He and the Father are one. It can't get much clearer than this. I also understand that the law was the guardian of mankind until they gained the intelligence to find love. When Paul speaks of God in these verses with Jesus new being our guardian, I am aware that Jesus has been there all along.

Galatians 3

23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You wrote:

["The book I wrote (The Superior Educator, A Calm and Assertive Approach to Classroom Management and Large Group Motivation) is about education and the wisdom of Confucius as applied to the classroom. The book that I quoted from about bias is a book called Verbal Judo by George Thompson. His book mirrors mine in that it seeks to preserve the dignity of the other person with proper communication that sticks to virtue. Confucius had words to say concerning this topic. Virtue is tied to the love of God. My passion in life is to learn more of God's wisdom. When you teach, you learn twice. Learning is difficult when pride gets in the way."]


Still another expression of zombified fanatism, originating from a religious psychosis or sub-standard intelligence.

Children don't care what you know until they know that you care. Removing bias, anger and condescension from your words is the way to preserving the dignity of others and allowing the message of truth to travel. Too many teachers cling to the same bias and anger toward children that others use to reveal their religious and racial prejudice. They are two sides of the same coin. We are to love others and lead by our conduct and attitudes. Bias and prejudice represents leading in the opposite direction of domination and control. I choose virtue.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You are as usual full of meaningless semantic excesses, hoping that your empty droning-on will reach someone at the same sub-standard level you operate from.

For a sane or average intelligent person, your preachings are total nonsense.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Why is YHWH (Yod, Hey, Vav, Hey) Satan? I can only point you toward the Phoenician script, which originates the Hebrew language, to show you that the three letters of the language are pictographs that represent "Behold the Hand, Behold the nail." Ancient Hebrew.org

This is my first bit of evidence that Jesus is what He claimed (One of the Three from the Trinity) as part of the One God.

I don't know how someone would make a pictograph letter that means, behold. What might look like a nail to you, might look like something else (tent peg?) to another person. The Egyptians had a hieroglyph of a hand so that one seems plausible. But overall, this sounds like remarkably flimsy evidence to support the idea that Jesus and Yahweh are one and the same. You say that whoever Jesus is, was the same person as was previously known as Yahweh. I take offense at that and not only does it defile him with the blood of the slain innocents, but makes his sacrifice a travesty.
Orthodox Trinity theory is that there are three equal but distinct persons of a godhead. This is not what you believe in. What you believe in is a single person who takes on different characteristics at different times. Not only have you said that yourself, but the belief is indicated by your support of Lonewolf in his expressing his Oneness doctrine belief. Oneness is not really trinitarian. You walk at fantasy tightrope where you can appear to be Christian to Christians while at the same time trying to appear acceptable to Jews as being properly respectful of their god, as a good slave to who you have accepted as your masters, mortal men.