Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by pthena

 

Still waiting on evidence that "Yahweh" is "pig god", and that people know that for a fact and use it anyway. You seemed to have agreed earlier that if someone used that name unintentionally, it wasn't an insult.

I did not say Yahweh is "pig god", I said Yahwehist's call Jesus "pig god". You really seem to have a problem with twisting what I say.

Originally posted by adjensen

We've gone around this many times, and you've consistently failed to answer this direct question:

There is a difference between being baptized into the correct name that is pronounced differently and being baptized into a different name.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by pthena

 

Still waiting on evidence that "Yahweh" is "pig god", and that people know that for a fact and use it anyway. You seemed to have agreed earlier that if someone used that name unintentionally, it wasn't an insult.

I did not say Yahweh is "pig god", I said Yahwehist's call Jesus "pig god". You really seem to have a problem with twisting what I say.

I asked you yesterday how anyone is saying "pig god", even noted that "Yah" doesn't seem to be it, since you think that refers to a "moon god", but you never bothered telling me how anyone is saying "pig god", so how can you expect me to know what you're talking about? As I said, I tried reading what Reckart wrote about it, but none of it makes any sense, so would you care to enlighten me?

We've gone around this many times, and you've consistently failed to answer this direct question:

There is a difference between being baptized into the correct name that is pronounced differently and being baptized into a different name.

In other words, "No", without admitting that your answer is no, exactly what I said you would do.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by pthena

 

I asked you yesterday how anyone is saying "pig god", even noted that "Yah" doesn't seem to be it, since you think that refers to a "moon god", but you never bothered telling me how anyone is saying "pig god", so how can you expect me to know what you're talking about?

If you would have read my posts instead of just scanning through them to find things to twist and attack, you would have seen that I was speaking of the Yahwehist/Sacred name movement.

Originally posted by adjensen

In other words, "No", without admitting that your answer is no, exactly what I said you would do.

Except a "no" answer does not mean witchcraft as you accuse. When we baptize in Jesus name, it is through faith, not "magic spells" as you claim.

reply to post by adjensen

Thank you very much adjensen,

Now that's Apologetics!
I like this paragraph:

At the same time, I became dis-satisfied with the individualism and rootlessness I felt characterized my faith. It was all about me. I wanted a faith that was bigger than my experience, bigger than my intelligence, bigger than my opinions, interpretations, and understanding. I wanted to be connected to the Church through the ages, the whole communion of saints through history. I wanted safe-guards against aimless pluralism and individualism in the interpretation of the Bible.

Now this is Polemics:

That sense of connection to the Church through the ages is discarded and despised in the New Apostolic Movements. To take Mormonism as an example: They claim that after the death of the last apostle, there was no Church of Jesus Christ left on Earth, but rather everything arising was of the Abominable Church, the truth only restored when Joseph Smith received the new apostleship. Nothing of value can be taken from the Abominable Church.

We reject these claims of the so-called new apostles. They despise God's workings through His people through the many centuries. Thus they despise God and Man, reserving to themselves all divine gifts and offices.

Apologetics is a safer avocation, as can be found in Pseudo-Peter,

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
1 Peter 3:15 NIV

Polemics is described in Pseudo-Paul:

Titus 1:10For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”c 13This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth.
--NIV

At the same time, he must keep this balance:

2Timothy 2:23Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

There is something that I'd like to write about the genius of the Creeds, I think that I should take more time on that than what I've hastily(yeah right, I'm so slow!) written here.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by pthena

 

I asked you yesterday how anyone is saying "pig god", even noted that "Yah" doesn't seem to be it, since you think that refers to a "moon god", but you never bothered telling me how anyone is saying "pig god", so how can you expect me to know what you're talking about?

If you would have read my posts instead of just scanning through them to find things to twist and attack, you would have seen that I was speaking of the Yahwehist/Sacred name movement.

Still not seeing how anyone is intentionally calling Jesus "pig god", and since you're either unwilling or unable to provide evidence of it, I guess it's a moot point. I personally do not refer to God as "Yahweh", but I think it's beyond ridiculous to claim that if you use that term, you're calling him "moon god" just because it has some of the same letters in it as some pagan god.

In other words, "No", without admitting that your answer is no, exactly what I said you would do.

Except a "no" answer does not mean witchcraft as you accuse.

Yes, it does, because you're saying that God cannot save anyone that he wants, and that specific words and forms must be used, or God cannot save someone, which makes God subservient to the words spoken by human beings, and that is the definition of "witchcraft" -- controlling the supernatural through rites or phrases.

It's a pretty simple matter to dismiss it by saying that, yes, God can save anyone that he wants, but that results in the words not mattering and, as I pointed out, that's where Reckart's elitism finds its home, so he'll never give it up.

reply to post by adjensen


Your teaching that faith equals witchcraft is not Biblical.

Your teaching that salvation can be received without faith is also not Biblical.

Your teaching that three gods equal one is not Biblical.

Your teaching that salvation can be in any name you want, even no name, is not Biblical.

reply to post by adjensen

that specific words and forms must be used, or God cannot save someone, which makes God subservient to the words spoken by human beings, and that is the definition of "witchcraft" -- controlling the supernatural through rites or phrases.

But words spoken are very important - or you would not have chosen to be a Roman Catholic. The rites and creeds serve as a protective ward for you.

"Witchcraft" and "Priestcraft" are not different in kind. Either of these is good or ill depending upon the motive and purpose. Invocation is the asking for the god's attendance. You wouldn't consider the invocation by your priest as a bad work of sorcery - of course not, because he is asking for the Christian God's presence.

I accidentally invoked the genius of the Apostle's Creed in my last post.

As I lay in bed thinking what I could write about the creed, there was the genius, with a sword.
It seems that the creed itself is a protective ward. I am outside the pale. You are the one within the protective ward.

The genius has restrained me from doing or saying something. So I had to find out why. I think I found it:

APOSTLES' CREED - Historical Note
In the early church, Christians confessed that "Jesus is Lord" but did not always understand the biblical context of lordship. The views of Marcion, a Christian living in Rome in the second century, further threatened the church's understanding of Jesus as Lord. Marcion read the Old Testament as referring to a tyrannical God who had created a flawed world. Marcion believed that Jesus revealed, in contrast, a good God of love and mercy. For Marcion, then, Jesus was not the Messiah proclaimed by the prophets, and the Old Testament was not Scripture. Marcion proposed limiting Christian "Scripture" to Luke's gospel (less the birth narrative and other parts that he felt expressed Jewish thinking) and to those letters of Paul that Marcion regarded as anti-Jewish. Marcion's views developed into a movement that lasted several centuries.

So it turns out that the Apostle's Creed was written to not only exclude me, but to protect the confessors of proto-orthodoxy from me.

It would be bad priestcraft for me to attempt to coerce the genius. The wiser thing is to acknowledge that he is alive and well. I have no choice then but to consider all dialog with Christians as an inter-faith rather than an ecumenical dialog.

Bottom line is: words and rites have meaning and power. Great care is required in their formulation.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Your teaching that faith equals witchcraft is not Biblical.

Your claim that God cannot save you unless you perform a specific rite is not a claim of faith in God, but a claim of faith in human beings and their actions. Your theology subordinates God.

If God cannot save you unless you are baptized in the name of "gee-zus", then he is not omnipotent.

If God can save you, but will not unless you are baptized in the name of "gee-zus", then he is not merciful.

I prefer a God who is omnipotent and merciful. You can keep your unBiblical theology of salvation by works.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by adjensen

that specific words and forms must be used, or God cannot save someone, which makes God subservient to the words spoken by human beings, and that is the definition of "witchcraft" -- controlling the supernatural through rites or phrases.

But words spoken are very important - or you would not have chosen to be a Roman Catholic. The rites and creeds serve as a protective ward for you.

While I believe that words are important, I do not believe in magic or manipulating God by my actions. The Creed is a statement of what I believe, but I fail to see how it is a "protective ward".

reply to post by adjensen


Pardon the interruption..

I was wondering if you find a God that will toss people in some firey pit merciful?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

I was wondering if you find a God that will toss people in some firey pit merciful?

"Fiery pit" notwithstanding, God doesn't send anyone to hell -- they choose to go there. In the afterlife, there is only one place that is separated from God, hell, and so a person who has opted to be separated from God is brought to the only place where that desire can be fulfilled.

Is giving you something that you've asked for an unmerciful act?

(And too many people read Dante and think that's an accurate depiction of hell. We have no idea what hell is, apart from being separated from God.)

reply to post by adjensen


Fair enough...

then its possible to consider returning here to be Hell... IF said person asked for it by being "evil"...

Why is it not possible they are returned here in whatever position they rightly deserved?

Could be a good explanation for the emerging Atheist's in the past and now... Who are those that willingly separate themselves from God

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Your claim that God cannot save you unless you perform a specific rite is not a claim of faith in God, but a claim of faith in human beings and their actions. Your theology subordinates God.

My theology is Biblical. It is not that God can't save someone who is not baptized, but that He won't save them. His word says we must be born of the water and the Spirit to see the kingdom of God. God will not contradict His word.

Again, I do not teach salvation by works, but salvation by grace through true faith, not the salvation through dead faith that you teach.

Originally posted by adjensen

"Fiery pit" notwithstanding, God doesn't send anyone to hell -- they choose to go there.

The same goes for the unbaptized. They choose to go to hell. God is merciful and has provided a way out to those who want it. That way is repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Spirit, by grace through faith.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

Fair enough...

then its possible to consider returning here to be Hell...

I'm not sure that this reality is sufficiently "separated from God". Like I said, all we know about hell is that God is not there, and scripture says that God is here, and Christ will be here, in person, after the second coming.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Your claim that God cannot save you unless you perform a specific rite is not a claim of faith in God, but a claim of faith in human beings and their actions. Your theology subordinates God.

My theology is Biblical. It is not that God can't save someone who is not baptized, but that He won't save them.

So you agree that God can save someone who doesn't follow your "gee-zus" rituals? Well, that's a bit of a breakthrough -- you agree that, at least as far as God's abilities go, baptism and its form doesn't matter.

Unfortunately, you follow that up by saying that God is uncaring -- a person who loved him all their lives, put their faith in him and lived by Christ's commandments would be condemned simply because they got the details wrong in one rite (even details that they had no control over -- you said that if an Apostolic Oneness pastor was a secret homosexual, no one he baptized was legitimately baptized.)

I prefer a caring, loving God, not some unsympathetic taskmaster with clipboard and checklist.

reply to post by adjensen

I'm not sure that this reality is sufficiently "separated from God".

So there is a need for God to be separated from those who choose to separate themselves from God?

Doesn't seem very merciful to me...

Like I said, all we know about hell is that God is not there, and scripture says that God is here,

I don't recall any passage that says God is not in "hell"... And IF God is here, then he is in everyone... or he is already separated from some people...

and Christ will be here, in person, after the second coming.

Unfortunately I have issues believing in a second coming... In fact I personally believe he has already came, but will not return in the flesh...

reply to post by Akragon

So there is a need for God to be separated from those who choose to separate themselves from God?

Doesn't seem very merciful to me...

Do you mean people being unmerciful toward God?

reply to post by pthena


Does a God need mercy from such a pathetic entity like a human?

Im not even sure how that would work...

reply to post by Akragon

Im not even sure how that would work...

I thought that we had already established that life on Earth is not separation from God, even the Atheist is not separate.

Yet some people keep demanding that some other people get cast out. That's unmerciful toward God.

I'm beginning to doubt that I'll ever make it back into the Christian fold. But you know what? God is out here too.