Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by truejew


Haha! If a jury acquits someone for a crime that means they are innocent. Acquitted means "not guilty". What did you think it meant?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
No, and I have never met any that do. I do not consider them to be Apostolic.

Why? If the only difference between you and them is that they juggle snakes and/or drink poison, what makes them "non-Apostolic"? Since you've never encountered them, and the ones in the article that I read were "Jesus only" baptizers who claimed pretty much the same things that you do, I don't see any difference, apart from the snakes, and I don't see how that would disqualify them.

There's only a very rare few churches that practice that because in nearly every other state it's illegal.

reply to post by truejew

Dear truejew,

You seem to think that it is good fruit to falsely accuse and bad fruit to defend against false accusations.

No, I don't.

I don't like being this blunt, but apparently I haven't been communicating well.

You believe you know the truth, if so, and if an argument requires two people, shouldn't there be more love here? "A gentle word turneth away wrath."

You believe others are wrong and damned unless they repent. Are you serving as a good teacher? The vast majority of the world disagrees with you, are you making your position and yourself more agreeable?

Assume, for a moment, that you are being attacked. Is there no better response than fighting back?

There isn't much peace left here. Since you are sure you have the right way, doesn't that make you the "adult," so to speak?

Have you found and emphasized areas of agreement and welcomed those who disagree as Children of God? Have you noted the areas of intractable disagreement, then moved on?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Haha! If a jury acquits someone for a crime that means they are innocent. Acquitted means "not guilty". What did you think it meant?

edit on 21-4-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Rick Ross has admitted his actions.


“A large award of punitive damages is also necessary under the recidivism and mitigation aspects of the factors cited in Haslip. Specifically, the Court notes that Mr. Ross himself testified that he had acted similarly in the past and would continue to conduct ‘deprogrammings’ in the future.”

He not only was guilty, but was unrepentant.

A jury does not remit sins.

Originally posted by truejew
The apostles did not teach snake handling and poison drinking.

Hmmm. Maybe I've been misunderstanding you all this time.

Do you believe that to be "Apostolic Oneness" (saved) is to believe that there is only one God (no Trinity) and to only do the things that the Apostles did, and not do the things that they did not do?

Is that where "Apostolic Oneness" comes from?

reply to post by charles1952


Would it not be more correct to write what you are saying to Adjensen since he refuses to drop his accusations and brings them up in every thread I try to discus in?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
The apostles did not teach snake handling and poison drinking.

Hmmm. Maybe I've been misunderstanding you all this time.

Do you believe that to be "Apostolic Oneness" (saved) is to believe that there is only one God (no Trinity) and to only do the things that the Apostles did, and not do the things that they did not do?

Is that where "Apostolic Oneness" comes from?

To be Apostolic is to follow the doctrines and traditions began by Jesus and the apostles.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by charles1952

 

Would it not be more correct to write what you are saying to Adjensen since he refuses to drop his accusations and brings them up in every thread I try to discus in?

Kindly point out where I've ever said that, as regards religion, I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

To be Apostolic is to follow the doctrines and traditions began by Jesus and the apostles.

So you think that the Bible contains a complete picture of everything that the Apostles did and said, and you have to follow them, or else you are not Apostolic and won't be saved?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by charles1952

 

Kindly point out where I've ever said that, as regards religion, I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

Every thread I start discussing in that you are also in, you bring up the false accusations of "cultist" and "witch" and change the topic to Pastor Reckart. False accusations are not good fruit. My defense of those false accusations is not bad fruit.

Originally posted by adjensen

So you think that the Bible contains a complete picture of everything that the Apostles did and said, and you have to follow them, or else you are not Apostolic and won't be saved?

To be saved we must be born again. Repentance, baptism into Christ, and receiving the Holy Spirit is the beginning. The person must then continue to walk in the Spirit to continue to be saved.

Originally posted by truejew
False accusations are not good fruit. My defense of those false accusations is not bad fruit.

Except that I don't accuse your theology and theologian, Reckart, falsely. You deflect valid arguments by either claiming that you didn't say what you did, or I "have a demon". That's a sign of a cult -- the dismissal of criticism without a reason outside of "we're right and you're wrong."

Originally posted by adjensen

So you think that the Bible contains a complete picture of everything that the Apostles did and said, and you have to follow them, or else you are not Apostolic and won't be saved?

To be saved we must be born again. Repentance, baptism into Christ, and receiving the Holy Spirit is the beginning. The person must then continue to walk in the Spirit to continue to be saved.

That doesn't really answer the question.

I'm trying to figure out why you don't like the snake handling Apostolic Oneness guys (aside from the obvious "yuck" snake handling factor, totally with you there, lol.) If they agree with everything that you say (which they seem to,) but also do the snake bit, you're saying that they're not Apostolic Oneness "fruit of the spirit" or whatever, and I'm trying to understand why.

Maybe a restatement would help -- do you view the Apostolic thing as being positively inclusive? Or as negatively exclusive? In other words:

1) You have to do everything that the Apostles did, that makes you Apostolic. If they didn't address something (like snake handling) then it doesn't matter.

2) You can't do anything that the Apostles didn't specifically tell you to do, so if they didn't address something (like snake handling) it does matter, and if you do it, you're not Apostolic.

My confusion is that you seem to be pretty solidly #1, with all the "have to baptize in the name of gee-zus" and "have to speak in tongues" stuff, but then you reject the snake handlers who agree with you on those points, implying that, at least as far as they go, you're in group #2.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Haha! If a jury acquits someone for a crime that means they are innocent. Acquitted means "not guilty". What did you think it meant?

edit on 21-4-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Rick Ross has admitted his actions.


“A large award of punitive damages is also necessary under the recidivism and mitigation aspects of the factors cited in Haslip. Specifically, the Court notes that Mr. Ross himself testified that he had acted similarly in the past and would continue to conduct ‘deprogrammings’ in the future.”

He not only was guilty, but was unrepentant.

A jury does not remit sins.

Where do you see "kidnapping"? And you can't keep calling someone "guilty" when a jury called the man "not guilty".

That would be lying, are you pro-lying?

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by charles1952

 

Would it not be more correct to write what you are saying to Adjensen since he refuses to drop his accusations and brings them up in every thread I try to discus in?

Pot meet kettle!

I can't think of a thread you've participated in where you didn't accuse people. What hypocrisy.

Soooo......

What does all of this have to do with my OP?

Originally posted by adjensen

Except that I don't accuse your theology and theologian, Reckart, falsely.

Yes, you do. I do not teach witchcraft and we do not fit the characteristics of a real cult. Real cults use brain washing. Real cults take people away from family and friends. Real cults lead to physical harm. Real cults often include drugs. Real cults do not live by the Bible.

Originally posted by adjensen

You deflect valid arguments by either claiming that you didn't say what you did, or I "have a demon".

Perhaps I really did not say what you claim that I said. At one time I wondered if you might be demon possessed, but that was a long time ago and I have long since ruled that out as a source of your attacks.

Originally posted by adjensen

That's a sign of a cult -- the dismissal of criticism without a reason outside of "we're right and you're wrong."

We believe the Bible is right and any one who contradicts it is wrong. That is what any Christian should believe.

Originally posted by adjensen

I'm trying to figure out why you don't like the snake handling Apostolic Oneness guys (aside from the obvious "yuck" snake handling factor, totally with you there, lol.) If they agree with everything that you say (which they seem to,) but also do the snake bit, you're saying that they're not Apostolic Oneness "fruit of the spirit" or whatever, and I'm trying to understand why.

We are not to tempt God.

Matthew 4:5-7 (KJV)
5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Haha! If a jury acquits someone for a crime that means they are innocent. Acquitted means "not guilty". What did you think it meant?

edit on 21-4-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Rick Ross has admitted his actions.


“A large award of punitive damages is also necessary under the recidivism and mitigation aspects of the factors cited in Haslip. Specifically, the Court notes that Mr. Ross himself testified that he had acted similarly in the past and would continue to conduct ‘deprogrammings’ in the future.”

He not only was guilty, but was unrepentant.

A jury does not remit sins.

Where do you see "kidnapping"? And you can't keep calling someone "guilty" when a jury called the man "not guilty".

That would be lying, are you pro-lying?

Again, a jury cannot remit sins.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by charles1952

 

Would it not be more correct to write what you are saying to Adjensen since he refuses to drop his accusations and brings them up in every thread I try to discus in?

Pot meet kettle!

I can't think of a thread you've participated in where you didn't accuse people. What hypocrisy.

There is a difference between speaking truth and falsely accusing.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by charles1952

 

Would it not be more correct to write what you are saying to Adjensen since he refuses to drop his accusations and brings them up in every thread I try to discus in?

Pot meet kettle!

I can't think of a thread you've participated in where you didn't accuse people. What hypocrisy.

There is a difference between speaking truth and falsely accusing.

You just falsely accused someone in this very thread.

That was both a lie and a false accusation. You knew from the last time you argued about this that he was acquitted.

reply to post by truejew


Who ever said a jury can remit sins??

No one here argued that they can remit sins.

They can however decide if a person who is accused of a crime did the crime or didn't do the crime.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Except that I don't accuse your theology and theologian, Reckart, falsely.

Yes, you do. I do not teach witchcraft and we do not fit the characteristics of a real cult. Real cults use brain washing. Real cults take people away from family and friends. Real cults lead to physical harm. Real cults often include drugs.

Those are not the end-all-be-all of cult characteristics, and if you had bothered to read the list I posted, you'd hae known that. And if you read the testimonies of those who have left the Pentecostal Oneness church, there are real instances of taking people away from their family and friends (such as shunning anyone who rejects the church) and instances of physical harm.

Real cults do not live by the Bible.

Of course they can, if they are Christian cults. "Living by the Bible" is one of the core components, in fact, because that's often the complaint against other Christian denominations. Unfortunately, as is the case with you lot, "living by the Bible" is extremely subjective and interpretive, so you wind up with hate-mongerers like Reckart, who rants that everyone who disagrees with him is going to hell, their crime being that their interpretation of the Bible is different than his.

Perhaps I really did not say what you claim that I said.

You've made claims that say God is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not merciful and is held hostage by human actions. The fact that you haven't used those specific words doesn't mean that you haven't said those things.

You know the argument, you know that I offered you an opportunity to debate it in an unbiased environment, and you know that you declined to participate.

We believe the Bible is right and any one who contradicts it is wrong. That is what any Christian should believe.

But you contradict it by the very core of your faith, so by your own statement, you are wrong. Claiming that God is not omniscient, omnipotent, merciful and free from human constraints contradicts the Bible. Claiming that Jesus did not tell the Apostles to baptize "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" contradicts the Bible. Claiming that God's only name is "gee-zus" contradicts the Bible. Claiming that you have to use certain words in certain ways with certain actions contradicts the Bible.

I could go on, but what's the point? You won't listen anyway.

Originally posted by adjensen

I'm trying to figure out why you don't like the snake handling Apostolic Oneness guys (aside from the obvious "yuck" snake handling factor, totally with you there, lol.) If they agree with everything that you say (which they seem to,) but also do the snake bit, you're saying that they're not Apostolic Oneness "fruit of the spirit" or whatever, and I'm trying to understand why.

We are not to tempt God.

I am not a snake handler and not too interested in burning time researching a goofy theology, but I suspect that they would say it is a demonstration of faith, not tempting God, and would cite Mark 16 in support of it.

And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. (Mark 16:17-18 NIV)

It wouldn't surprise me if there weren't some Apostolic Oneness Snake Handlers who would say that Reckart is going to hell, as he's obviously not a believer because he doesn't juggle snakes.

All because of differing interpretations of words written 2,000 years ago, which obviously have nothing to do with salvation.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Who ever said a jury can remit sins??

No one here argued that they can remit sins.

They can however decide if a person who is accused of a crime did the crime or didn't do the crime.

That does not remit their sin of actually doing the crime.