ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

StrongAxe's Blog Replies
Post a New Blog

Vote on StrongAxe as a helpful ChristiaNet blogger by clicking this link. Currently StrongAxe has 1377 votes. The higher the number of votes the more helpful this blogger is considered by the ChristiaNet community.


ISIS Angels Revelation
  
Cluny:

In 1492, Spain did a very Muslim-like thing to Jews - move, convert, or die. And we all know how Conquistadores treated the New World, with the Pope's blessing.

The Crusades were the Christian European response to mahometan jihadism.

Crusaders were given plenary indulgences, freeing them from responsibilities the rest of us endure. Having an army of soldiers coming through town taking whatever they need without feeling the need to pay for it would certainly fill the merchants with great cheer.

Puritan New England--Pilgrim's pride and all that--did the same thing, only they were Protestants,

Proving my point - Christians of ANY type committing atrocities in God's name, giving God a bad name.


What Is The Real Gospel
  
Warwick:

To split hairs, Isaiah doesn't say the messiah would be "wonderful councellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the prince of peace". He says the messiah would be CALLED these things, which does not necessarily assert that these are necessarily true. The fact that Jesus has been called these things fulfills this prophecy, regardless of whether he actually IS any of those things. So one cannot use this verse to prove that Jesus is the Father (as Lawrence continually asserts).


Most Accurate Bible
  
michael_e:

Since we have so many manuscripts that disagree in minor points, and we have no objective third-party authority (e.g. a voice from heaven) to tell us which ones are right, God is leaving it for imperfect humans to copy and vet imperfect copies of his word.

From this, we have to conclude that God is more concerned with the central essence of the message, rather than every single word, jot, and tittle - because we no longer have those to rely on. Maybe he never intended us to. Cults frequently base bizarre doctrines on the twist of a single word or phrase mentioned only once - clearly a very unwise (and unstable) way to treat any kind of documents, whether biblical or not.


What Is The Gospel
  
Steveng:

You said: I knew exactly what I was writing and definately did not "hastily jump to such a conclusion."

I have no doubt that you intended to say exactly what you intended to say. However, from the context (and from Luke's response), it is fairly clear that, rather than trying to determine what HE meant by his statement (for example, by comparing it to his other posts on these blogs in the past), you jumped immediately into an accusation of something that is merely not true.

If you walked slowly and deliberately rather than jumping, I apologize for my inaccurate phrasing.


ISIS Angels Revelation
  
Nana:

One could infer, from Crusades, Conquistadores, Inquisitions, etc., that Christians as a group were greedy, power-hungry, murdering villains - with divine sanction for such crimes, so they must worship an evil god. And one could not be faulted for such a conclusion. This is the kind of thing that Paul wrote of: "It is because of YOU that my name is blasphemed among the nations".

But Christianity has repented and gotten over most of that. Also, Jesus never taught any of it, so any Christian who does it is disobeying Jesus.

Contrast with Islamic groups TODAY who send children in as suicide bombers, and Mohammed who commanded his followers to slay infidels. You're comparing apples and oranges.


Most Accurate Bible
  
Warwick:

You wrote: Interestingly in my childhood in country Australia the RC church conducted services in Latin, even though few could understand it. People thought it gave a mysterious religious flavour and many protested strongly when services were changed to English.

This happens in a lot of places. I think it depends on WHY people go to church.

If they do it to get closer to God, they should welcome anything that narrows the gap between them. But if they want to experience the alien and mysterious, they don't want to get closer to God - they want God to remain separate and mysterious. They don't want religion - they want magic.


What Is The Gospel
  
Luke wrote: I do not need Scripture. Millions are dying without knowing Jesus Christ.

Steveng wrote: Wow, you don't need scripture? Not surprised and you're not alone. Most christians think the same, unfortunately.

It sounds like he meant "I do not need Scripture TO TELL ME millions are dying without knowing Jesus Christ" - NOT "I do need Scripture at all". If you look at other things Luke has written in the past, you would likely not hastily jump to such a conclusion.

(and also to jerry6593)


Most Accurate Bible
  
michael_e wrote: Seems to be very little doubt the KJV is very accurate as all others seem to be compared to it.

It's more that SO many people seem to think the KJV is the end-all and be-all translation, all others are compared to it, just to show how accurate (or inaccurate) such a claim is.


ISIS Angels Revelation
  
Cluny:

You wrote: Obama drinks alcohol, eats pork, and supports abortion, all of which are forbidden in mahometanism.

Yes. Apparently, by watching ISIS, it's only appropriate to murder children after they are born.


David With Many Wives
  
Cluny:

You said: I don't recall anyone saying God tolerated polygamy.

There is no mention in the Bible that polygamy is NOT acceptable to God. It was common among all the patriarchs. The custom in the New Testament was monogamy, but there would have been no need to mention a bishop as being a "man of one wife" if polygamy was not acceptable.

Solomon was chastised for his many wives - NOT because of the number, but because they swayed him to other gods. The prophet condemned David for adultery and murder - but said not a word about his polygamy.


Following Man's Doctrines
  
David8318:

You said: As we have already established, Greek grammar at Jo.1:1 describes the logos as 'a god'. Not that logos is God.

No. YOU claim that it "describes". It doesn't say "god describes the word" or "the word was like a god". It says "the word WAS [a?] god". If you are free to turn any occurrence of the verb "to be" as merely a description, it's impossible to tell what most of the Bible says about anything - because it might not be saying anything concrete at all. Was Jesus God, or merely divine? Was David actually a king, or merely regal? Was Solomon David's real son, or merely like a son to him? Etc. etc.


Following Man's Doctrines
  
David8318:

You wrote: Little does Marc realise that his trinitarian understanding of John 1:1 reveals his polytheist bent.

Given that most Christians on this site and elsewhere are trinitarians, this will be a hard sell.

Marc is a duped Neo-Platonist controlled by his trinitarian Christian Zionist overlords.

Would you like to be called "David, a duped Millerite controlled by his Watchtower overlords?" If not, by Jesus's own Golden Rule, you should not throw such slurs at others.


Following Man's Doctrines
  
David8318:

If the Logos is "described" as a god, then either he IS, in fact, "a god" (and my point stands), or he is NOT, in fact, "a god", and the description is flawed, and John 1:1 is just plain wrong.

Once again you are left with the choices of trinitarinism, polytheism, or tossing scripture into the trash (or re-interpreting it to say something different than it actually says, to make it fit your pet beliefs).


Belief In Angels
  
Samuelbb7:

There are also some subtleties here. For example, if the person telling you the truth is someone who hurt you, you are less likely to believe him. E.g. if conquistadores kill your men, rape your women, steal your gold and your land - all because they believe they have permission to do so from their god - and they then tell you to worship the same god who gave them permission to do these things - you are likely to think "this must be an evil god they worship, and I want nothing to do with him".

It is situations like this that inspired Paul to write in Romans 2:24:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through YOU, as it is written."


Following Man's Doctrines
  
David8318:

You said: You believe Jo.1:1 says 'the God... and the God'. You believe both occurences of 'theos' identify the subject as 'the God'.

Where have I ever actually said that? You are just reading between the lines of what I actually wrote (much as JWs read between the lines of what scripture says).

What I DID do is to point out the inconsistency - if you believe they are different, you have two gods - "the god" and "a god". Given this, you must choose one the three alternatives I had mentioned.

And it's not as if you accept one and repudiate the other as the Jews did (e.g. worshiping Jehovah, while acknowledging but rejecting Baal), because you are for Jesus and not against him, yes?


Following Man's Doctrines
  
David8318:

*I* personally find it to be mostly just splitting hairs. However, trinitarian and oneness theologians will be very insistent that there is a MAJOR difference.

If they are different, then you are teaching polytheism.

My hand is part of me. My foot is part of me. But my hand is NOT my foot.

You have 3 different Gods.

And you have two different gods: Jehovah and Jesus. What is your point?


Belief In Angels
  
joseph:

You asked: "can a cannibal raised a cannibal be held to the same Truth?" That would depend upon what "Truth" is being held.

I think that, from the context, it's obvious that the truth being implied here is the idea that "it's wrong to eat other people". A cannibal raised among cannibals would find nothing wrong with that.


Following Man's Doctrines
  
sin:

We all make mistakes, and that's normal. The mistakes become dangerous, however, when we refuse to admit the possibility of our being wrong, when we insist that our way is God's way, when we refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with us, and we call them delusional or damned.


Following Man's Doctrines
  
David8318:

If Jesus is "a god" but different from "THE God", one has two gods - this is polytheism. If there's only one god, then Jesus isn't one, which doesn't even interpret John 1:1 differently, it shreds it utterly and throws it in the trash. You need to make up your mind, and decide which uncomfortable conclusion you prefer to live with:
1) trinitarianism
2) polytheism
3) throwing the Bible into the trash.
Please choose one.


Following Man's Doctrines
  
David8318:

You said: So what you're now saying is trinitarians do not believe in 'one' god?

No, I didn't say nor imply it at all. Re-read what I wrote. Both trinitarians and oneness people believe that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are God. The difference is that Oneness people believe that they are all one and the same, while trinitarians believe they are one but different.

Anyone who has seen my hand or my foot has seen me. We are all one, but my hand and my foot are NOT the same. This is how trinitarianism works. Personally, I find the difference to be one of hair-splitting, but most trinitarians and oneness people thinks it's very important.

Besides, JWs have two "legitimate" gods (John 1:1)



Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.