Oakspear

So what? He wasn't one of the first to put anything together in a coherent package, his "package" was largely Leonard's class with Wierwille's name stamped on it. You don't care that "the man of God" stole his centerpiece class?

We found a dead mouse in our driveway on Saturday. Damn terrorist cats.

Let me clarify. You got an answer, skippy. And if people don't want to use their real names, that's their decision, not yours.

Do what you want. Leave, stay, change your name to papa-gee, whatever. Just stop whining about it. Or continue to whine about...that's your f---ing decision. So, you got insulted. Join the club. You've certainly dished it out yourself.

Phillip meams "horse-lover" in Greek (phil - hippos. Some families did collaborate with the Romans though. Josephus is one example. His full name was Flavius Josephus I believe.Could some of these names be Hellenized versions of Hebrew names?

Could Jews have had gentile (i.e. Greek) names? I believe that Andrew is a Greek name, as is Phillip. Well, you did ask how it could be reconciled with the future return of Christ...that's one way.

I've never really investigated if other faiths besides Christianity posit the "fallen man" theology, but it doesn't seem to be central to any others. In the early centuries of the Christian church, the doctrine of the fall of man and its implications wasn't settled. Pelagius, a monk from the British Isles taught that mankind could avoid sinning and freely choose to obey the commandments of God and did not have a nature that predestined them to sin, as Augustine taught. Pegius' teaching were declared a heresy. I agree with Bramble in that not believing that man is "fallen" does not imply that man is perfect or does not need to change or improve himself. Man is far from perfect and many religious beliefs and practices can offer paths to improving man's state. In fact, most religion, outside of the component regarding the nature or existance of a divinity or divinities, is largely concerned with actions: ethics, morals, interactions among people.

Like I said, a reasonable assumption. They wouldn't, which was my point. Again, exactly my point. Merriam-Websters on-line dictionary differs: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/truthMain Entry: truth Pronunciation: 'trüth Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th]z, 'trüths/ Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE 1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance 2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions 3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard 4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD - in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY So who's making up their own definitions now? All your base are belong to us! My assumption that what people believe as true they also believe as truth? My assumption was based on the dictionary meaning of the word. If anyone means something different than what the dictionary definition states, then yes, I am in error in my assumption. No, not merely a statement with both words in it. Do you really believe that that's what I'm saying? Do you find this strategy effective in real life?

You're going to find many different opinions here about who Jesus Christ was. For every 5 GSers, you'll get 10 opinions One thing that I doubt any of us will tell you is that you'll get possessed by a devil spirit, trinitarian or otherwise. Good luck on your spriritual quest

IMHO if we had only the gospels Christianity would look a lot different today. For better or for worse Paul was a pivotal figure, or at least whoever wrote the epistles attributed to him was.

Bramble: I think it varies depending on the "flavor" of Christian that you're talking to, but other than the rare "universalist" Christian, if you don't meet whatever standard that they believe the bible sets for attaining the afterlife, you will reap the consequenses. For those who had similar beliefs to TWI, you're just dead, you get judged first in some versions, but you're not tortured in hell, just not eternally alive. Others of course believe that the bible teaches a literal hell and that those who don't make the grade are punished in some fashion, either by hideous torture on one hand, or simply being outside the presence of God on the other. Some take the position that once you "get saved" or "born again" you can't lose eternal life, so that people like you and I who once were Christians get the same eternal life gig as someone who remains a Christian, others believe that you can lose that status. I have never run into a group other than TWI however, that was so into the devil spirit/possession consequenses of being a non-Christian. In TWI doctrine, not only were you missing out on eternal life, but you were being run by a "five-star general" devil spirit, or maybe you were "born again of the wrong seed". For those who turned away, we were definitely possessed, although still getting the eternal life gold ticket, albeit without "rewards". Some groups who are more "works" oriented tend to see the possibility that good people of any faith might have a place in heaven. It has been my experience that Christians are the most tolerant in these matters of Jews, seeing them almost as wayward cousins, Hindus and Buddhists from Hindu and Buddhist countries are viewed in a similar way, although American born Hindus and Buddhists are not looked upon so kindly. Wiccans are equated with satan worshippers and atheists are the lowest of the low.

No finally about it. My position hasn't changed; you finally understood what I was saying. What the h#ll do you care how many times I repeat myself? Don't read my posts if it bothers you. If someone believes that what they believe is true, do they not view those beliefs as truth? Maybe not, but that would certainly be a reasonable assumption. That's what I was addressing. Yeah, well, I provided it, you rejected or ignored it...we're obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on that subject...how about we consider that particular horse dead and posthumously beat some other animals?

I could copy quotes until the cows and whatever farm animals are available come home and it would avail me not. Wow, a false dilemma! Wow! Hyperbole Okay. I didn't say that there was any attacking going on. Iam free to disagree with points being made, am I not? Nooooo...of course not :blink: Strawman argument! Truth: "the state of being the case, fact, the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality, a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>,the body of true statements and propositions,the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality" - I don't think most religious beliefs fall under these definitions, even the big one: the existance and/or nature of "God". If one person says that God is best described by the bible, and another says that God is best described by the Koran, and a third believes that "goddess" is a better description, and they all say that they're beliefs and perceptions are THE TRUTH, there beliefs and perception of what is THE TRUTH comes down to their differeing opinions and is therefore subjective. It doesn't matter how convinced each f the three may be, or how many spiritual experiences they claim to have, their experiences are subjective and have no claim to being THE TRUTH. That's what I believe is subjective.Maybe there is something out there that can be categorized as THE TRUTH, that can be objectively viewed and seen as such. I don't see anyone claiming to be able to objectively demonstrate it. TRUTH isn't subjective, perception is subjective. And if all of our perceptions of what truth is are subjective, then no one can credibly claim to decide who is right and who is wrong.

fair enough, I'll re-read it. And by the way, "not explicit" means "implicit", which means "implied", which means that it's not spelled out. Okay, I see it, but it's just a setup for the chorus: Okay, love, great Thanks, I didn't see this rude dig the first time. Okay, nice verse Okay, I read into it. No hellfire and damnation and bad stuff. My fault. But what if I'm wrong? I miss out on what? Love? I've got that. Eternal life? What else? I imagine that all the stuff that I miss out on if I'm wrong I can still get. And Bliss, just to clarify in the midst of the food fights, I have no problem with Christianity in general, or with Christians wanting to believe in Jesus or prayer or what have you. What I do have a problem with is when my own beliefs are relegated to second class status, or that I'm in need of "saving". Any arguments that I make against the bible being God breathed, or God existing, or Jesus being an historical character, or the efficacy of prayer are all in the pursuit of the point of view that one person's religion is not necessarily any more "correct" than anyone else's. I can't prove your beliefs wrong, but neither can you demonstrate that yours are superior to mine. Reverse the pronouns in that sentence and it's still the case.

Yes, that is one of the dictionary definitions. let's try this definition: "To set in opposition in order to show or emphasize differences" or " juxtaposition of dissimilar elements". How about Ephesians 2:1 - And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins - The state of being dead, what people are is contasted by implication with an act of God, "hath he quickened". Once again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what a strawman argument is, and I have not twisted your words, but quoted them verbatim. You placed the concept of "truth", which you used in your argument against my position that there doesn't necessarily need to be someone who is wrong alongside the description of people who "do what they want", "do what is right in their own eyes" or "believe as they choose thus doing as they please. A juxtoposition, a contrast. And your illustration is specious. Yup.

Bliss: The point of view prpounded in that poem is just fear motivation, "believe because the alternative is..."what? Death? Hellfire? It's not explicit. You have a point of view that is just as likely to be true or false as anything else out there; the Muslims can make that same "what if you're wrong" speech too.

I suspect that is what he's saying, Bramble. Which kind of goes against the theory that Jesus did it all, I don't do anything to get eternal life/get into heaven. If one truly doesn't do anything (including an act of believing) to get eternal life, then universalism is the result.

Actually, that's what I did, and you misquoted me. Right...you misquoting me Well here's one example: and here's another Hmmm...we're not. Okay, but... Clear writing obviates most misunderstandings.

Heretical agnostics? Does that mean you don't follow orthodox agnosticism?

Or maybe I'll go to India, make .... up and put it in a class.

So it's not about what you do or believe (since believing is a form of works) it's about mercy and acknowledgement (themselves a form of works). This would be the opposite of the dreaded "doing what we want". This implies that the aforementioned mercy & acknowledgement are doing what the higher power (i.e. God) wants. If one has mercy and acknowledgement of the higher power within the context of Islam or Buddhism or Wicca, is that one still "doing what they want"? Or can one only escape "doing what they want" in the Christian context?

I don't know if you're intentionally lying, forgettful, or just can't keep track of who said what and when. The first use of the phrase "doing the truth" is in your post #52 ...which seems to be a response to post #40 in post #54 I asked you what you meant Just so I don't make any unwarranted assumptions about your position, what is "doing the truth" in your opinion? And is "doing what you want" not "doing the truth", or something else? You then, in the previously quoted post #54 denied using the phrase other than repeating my words...which I did not write To summarize: You talked about "the truth"; you contrasted this explicitly with those who "do what they want to do" in posts #'s 26 & 28. I commented that from an objective standpoint, you couldn't tell "the truth" from people "doing what they want to do" in post #40. You responded to post #40 in post #52 using the phrase "doing the truth", which was the first usage of that particular phrase. In post #53 I asked you what you meant by "doing the truth", including your usage of the phrase in quotes You respond in post #54 that you didn't use the phrase, but were only repeating what I said This may seem like a lot of trouble for one small point, but it's one thing to misunderstand another's point, but you consistantly misrepresent my points, and then mount an attack against those phantom positions.

You shouldn't have to clearify? maybe not, but I apparently misunderstood you awhile back and don't want it to happen again. You said that if you are right and I am wrong then my belief system could be a dangerous system (expanding upon what I asked initially: is my soul in danger). Assuming that you do believe that you are right, then you believe that my belief system could be a dangerous system. So what is this possibility of danger that you see in my belief system? And, with your use of the qualifier "if", this means that you consider the possibility that you might be wrong about your religious beliefs?

Bliss: I don't offend easily, but in my caped avenger alter-ego I fight illogic wherever I find it :ph34r: Anyway, maybe my omelet cooking friend Sushi (the man made breakfast for me once...I still haven't had its equal ) was speaking tongue-in-cheek. Okay now, this is a serious question: What does "caring about my soul" mean? It seems to indicate that my current beliefs put my soul in some kind of danger. Can you clarify for me?

..maybe JL can join papa gee for a cold one