Those who want to follow an evil man and his good leaven, go right ahead.
HA! And then maybe you can have a judge rule that your right to believe is fine---as long as you don't act on those beliefs by raping and abusing other men's
wives. Just cause your the MOG don't cha know! --if it wasn't true it would be comical.
What were those allegations again? What did the Way settle out of court on?
Oh yeah, I remember.
When was it any "Leadership" just sat and read the bible--WITHOUT expounding? From what I remember you couldn't get them to shut-up.
Our turn now and that just gets under their skin-doesn't it? Ahhh Freedom of Speech--Gotta love it.
The purpose of the courts is to provide the place for determinations, judgements, to be made on the matters brought before them. Judge, jury, plaintiff, defendant, evidence, etc. etc.
The court statements seem to be pointing out that the freedom to have religious beliefs doesn't allow a person to act in a way that's harmful to others in society simply because their actions are attached to what they consider religious convictions.
Particularly when the court determined that several individuals of The Way were involved in activities that the defendants claimed brought them harm. Ones own right to "religious freedom" and the right of a community to exercise it's beliefs amongst themselves can be judged wrong by the law if there are laws broken.
The court statements don't directly address the same issues as the leaven/loaf stuff but in application they could.
Take out "the Pharisees" from the gospel statements and it's easier to see I think.
As it says elsewhere in the gospels, it's not what goes into a person that makes him right or wrong, it's what comes out - what that person does.
"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me." - Matthew 15:8. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Etc. etc. - - that's pretty much what Jesus says
The right to believe as one will, is one thing. But the actions taken speak to what I really believe and that is what Jesus judged by. I have a "right to believe" but not a right to act and break the law. Jesus doesn't say a person can't say they honor him and then act differently, He just says that the actions are what I'll be judged by. Not that different than the court statements, in a kind of abstract way I think.
When you "look at scripture and see truth" do you see it the same way you would have seen it PRE-twi?
Or do the words of the collaterals ring in your inner ears as you read the Bible? If this is the case, then you have submitted to a mediated experience. It's not "truth" you hear or read, it's what you've been told is truth.
No I did not see truth pre TWI only religion and Catholic doctrine, No collaterals do not ring in my inner ear
What I've been told? Now that is a laugh coming from people who claim they were forced to do things. No I learned to search the scriptures
Or do the words of the collaterals ring in your inner ears as you read the Bible? If this is the case, then you have submitted to a mediated experience. It's not "truth" you hear or read, it's what you've been told is truth.
And you answered:
What I've been told? Now that is a laugh coming from people who claim they were forced to do things. No I learned to search the scriptures
My point is that you *just may* still be filtering what you read through PLAF-colored glasses. And I presented it as a possibility- not an accusation. ("If... then" is a conditional phrase.)
I'll leave the rest of your statement for another thread since it doesn't apply to me or most of the posts I've read.
My point is that you *just may* still be filtering what you read through PLAF-colored glasses. And I presented it as a possibility- not an accusation. ("If... then" is a conditional phrase.)
I'll leave the rest of your statement for another thread since it doesn't apply to me or most of the posts I've read.
No change of point,. it was a silly possibility, given that what people told me as I have repeatedly said did not equal following like sheep. I was never one that lamented about being controlled. So the obvious answer to the question was No.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
13
13
9
Popular Days
Jun 27
44
Jun 29
23
Jun 30
23
Jun 28
22
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 7 posts
WhiteDove 13 posts
doojable 13 posts
Bumpy 9 posts
Popular Days
Jun 27 2008
44 posts
Jun 29 2008
23 posts
Jun 30 2008
23 posts
Jun 28 2008
22 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
"it is my opinion that, the conduct of these hypocritical "whited sepulchres" indeed nullifies their purported "beliefs" as being "biblically accurate"...........it is also my opinion that, despite th
geisha779
Excathedra, Your dignity inspires-so right back at ya sister! Sunesis, Ain't it the truth. Step away from the light, I mean the church. WOW! Been years since I have played "Bible Gotcha" Seems to
geisha779
Sounds reasonable, except when you consider the "Word" or "Commandments of God" taught by VP. Then the whole premise is flawed. As many times as we heard--It's the word-the word and nothing but the wo
geisha779
HA! And then maybe you can have a judge rule that your right to believe is fine---as long as you don't act on those beliefs by raping and abusing other men's
wives. Just cause your the MOG don't cha know! --if it wasn't true it would be comical.
What were those allegations again? What did the Way settle out of court on?
Oh yeah, I remember.
When was it any "Leadership" just sat and read the bible--WITHOUT expounding? From what I remember you couldn't get them to shut-up.
Our turn now and that just gets under their skin-doesn't it? Ahhh Freedom of Speech--Gotta love it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The purpose of the courts is to provide the place for determinations, judgements, to be made on the matters brought before them. Judge, jury, plaintiff, defendant, evidence, etc. etc.
The court statements seem to be pointing out that the freedom to have religious beliefs doesn't allow a person to act in a way that's harmful to others in society simply because their actions are attached to what they consider religious convictions.
Particularly when the court determined that several individuals of The Way were involved in activities that the defendants claimed brought them harm. Ones own right to "religious freedom" and the right of a community to exercise it's beliefs amongst themselves can be judged wrong by the law if there are laws broken.
The court statements don't directly address the same issues as the leaven/loaf stuff but in application they could.
Take out "the Pharisees" from the gospel statements and it's easier to see I think.
As it says elsewhere in the gospels, it's not what goes into a person that makes him right or wrong, it's what comes out - what that person does.
"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me." - Matthew 15:8. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Etc. etc. - - that's pretty much what Jesus says
The right to believe as one will, is one thing. But the actions taken speak to what I really believe and that is what Jesus judged by. I have a "right to believe" but not a right to act and break the law. Jesus doesn't say a person can't say they honor him and then act differently, He just says that the actions are what I'll be judged by. Not that different than the court statements, in a kind of abstract way I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
There ya go... changing the point again.
I asked:
And you answered:
My point is that you *just may* still be filtering what you read through PLAF-colored glasses. And I presented it as a possibility- not an accusation. ("If... then" is a conditional phrase.)
I'll leave the rest of your statement for another thread since it doesn't apply to me or most of the posts I've read.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No change of point,. it was a silly possibility, given that what people told me as I have repeatedly said did not equal following like sheep. I was never one that lamented about being controlled. So the obvious answer to the question was No.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I will attest to this. WD has not lamented about being controlled, AFAIK.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.