Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Fair enough...

But he is rather familiar with the passage..

Most of us are...

bahmer

He has his belief and I have mine I will leave it there. I relate to Rose and Zemirah more than I do to Tommy.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Cheers to that

bahmer

That is why I refer to him as susanblange she also was out in left field as well so far in left field in that she claimed to be the messiah.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Nope...

Tommy is solid...

I have a personal quest to catch him in a logic fallacy... (other then generalization... we are all guilty of that... and he does hard his leftists )...

But his rationality is sound and his ability to formulate an argument is profound

Rose42

The truth won't be seen by all. One can memorize the bible and still not glean its truths. That doesn't mean everyone will agree on everything - they won't - but there are fundamental truths Christians agree on. As Zemirah pointed out, we have to resist the temptation to follow after anyone who believes they have some special revelation.

Rose42

The claim to have stopped sinning is downright ridiculous but I wouldn't put him with susan. She needs help. Tommy is simply wrong in several areas. He can fool those who don't truly believe or those who are weak or new in the faith but not those who are wearing their armor.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Ah.... Susan claimed to have stopped sinning... My earlier sarcasm was unwarranted...

Rose42

I didn't see that one. I do hope she is getting help.

Lamentations 3-

22 The Lord’s lovingkindnesses indeed never cease,
For His compassions never fail.
23 They are new every morning;
Great is Your faithfulness.
24 “The Lord is my portion,” says my soul,
“Therefore I have hope in Him.”
25 The Lord is good to those who wait for Him,
To the [b]person who seeks Him.

bahmer

[quote=Rose42]I didn't see that one. I do hope she is getting help.

Lamentations 3-

22 The Lord’s lovingkindnesses indeed never cease,
For His compassions never fail.
23 They are new every morning;
Great is Your faithfulness.
24 “The Lord is my portion,” says my soul,
“Therefore I have hope in Him.”
25 The Lord is good to those who wait for Him,
To the [b]person who seeks Him.[/quote]

Yes susanblange claimed to be the messiah and to do that one would have to stop sinning would they not?

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

I wish you had enough integrity to quote where I said what you claim I believe. Because, in truth, you don't actually listen to what I actually say I believe anymore than you listen to what the Bible actually says. And that makes you a false witness and a liar.

What kind of relationship do you have with Jesus?

Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commands." John 14:15

Do you Love Him? That is a relationship- keeping his commandments is a relationship of love. Why don't you keep his commandments?

Do you want to be friends with Jesus Christ? It is written again- “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” -John 15:14

Do you want to know Him? “we… know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” -1 John 2:3

Do you want a Father and Son relationship with God? “…be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” -2 Corinthians 6:17-7:1

Separation from the world, the scripture teaches, is part of God's Father/son relationship with us!

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” -1 John 2:15-17

Would you like to have an Elder/Firstborn brother in Jesus Christ? Here's what Jesus says about that- “…My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.” -Luke 8:21

Now let's look at it this way- What about a relationship with Jesus Christ without obedience?

Do you want to know Him but not keep His commandments? Apostle John wrote- “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.” -1 John 2:4-5

Do you want to claim Jesus as Lord, but not "have to" do the will of the Father? Jesus said- “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father... Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied.. cast out devils.. and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock…” -Matthew 7:21.


So keeping Jesus’ commandments are paramount for having a relationship with Jesus. What are his commandments? It is most telling that Jesus reiterated the first commandment in Greek words and grammar.

"The Lord our God (masculine, singular, accusative) is one (masculine, singular, accusative)" Mark 12:29

One: Greek "heîs, hice; a primary numeral; one" -Strong's

And it is in this manner that both Jesus and the Jews understood the first commandment.

"We know what we worship for salvation is of the Jews... God (singular) is spirit (singular), and those who worship him (singular) must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:22,24

According to Jesus, and that by commandment, God is one, singular, "Him."

Ironically, Trinitarians understand that the NT explains the OT. But they reject that principal when it comes to the first commandment. The OT Hebrew word for god, “elohim”, is a plural word, like our “sheep” for example. If we say "we have one sheep" and "sheep is one", we have emphatically excluded the possibility that we are talking about "multiple persons in one sheep." And that is how illogical and contrived the idiotic theory of the trinity is. God's word utterly clarifies the ambiguity in the plurality of the word just like we would do with an English plural word like sheep. Plus, it is not true of the Greek word for God, "Theos", that Jesus himself used to translate Deuteronomy 6:4, which is emphatically singular, both in meaning and in grammatical number. The Greek is very specific. If Jesus meant to use the word theos in a way that meant or implied multiple persons he could easily have done so, but he didn't. Thus Jesus himself emphasized the personal singularity of God by enshrining it in a commandment just like the OT did.

Singular: “Singular Number in substantives and verbs refers to only one Person or Thing, e.g. “I”, “you” (one person), he, she, it.” -Wheeler’s Greek Syntax.

Deny it all you want, negate his choice of words all you want, bear false witness against him all you want, but the fact stands that Jesus himself translated the first and most important commandment with words that emphatically excluded the idea of a Trinity of persons in the godhead, and Trinitarians simply don't believe him and won't obey him, and when given the opportunity, like you have been given in these discussions you fight tooth and nail against the first commandment as it is stated by Jesus God's own son!

And thereby you expose that your whole claim to having a relationship with Jesus is a lie according to the apostle John:

"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:4

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

This is utter hypocrisy!

The Trinity doctrine is what is the "special revelation". Have you spent any time at all researching its development? I've spent many years. I can tell you each major step of its evolution, all the major contributors, and at least five biblical concepts where Trinitarians have rejected explicit biblical concepts in order to adopt pagan concepts instead by which to (falsely) interpret the Bible with. It is simply not stated anywhere in scripture that "God is one essence in three persons". That formulation is only found in"special revelation". But that formulation came from somewhere, just not the Bible, the apostles, Jesus or biblical Judaism. Thus it is obvious that it is the trinity that is "special revelation" and that is not surprising since it was the Gnostics who gave Trinitarians the very word "trinity", the "dual nature" doctrine, and the idea of ascribing distinct literal personhood to attributes of God.

Quote where the Bible actually says that "God is one essence in three persons", or where God Himself named Himself "Trinity" or "Triune", or repent of your hypocritical words that only work to condemn you!

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Hey my friend,

I've been meaning to thank you for your kind words!

And I'm honored by your personal quest! I'm no where near as astute as you are in identifying and categorizing logical fallacies. To me, it's simply a matter of truth vs honesty, or openness vs deceitfulness, or "doing unto others..."

I think, though, that I'd like to challenge you on one point here. It appears to me that you are "generalizing" that all "generalizations" are ipso facto ("by that fact", for those unaware) logical fallacies, whether small or large.

I would like to contend that sometimes generalizations are appropriate, even when not necessarily literal. For example, Jesus said, "if the blind lead the blind they will both fall into a ditch". In other words, it is said, "don't be a partaker in other people's sins", and again, "avoid the appearance of evil." In other words, one doesn't necessarily need to be actively engaged in the subject of the generalization to be part of the generalization. Take for example, leftists and abortion. Certainly, not all Democrats are pro-abortion, but neither do they, typically, distance themselves from abortionists by, say, joining a whole other party, as I would, being decisively anti-abortion (like I did by abandoning the Libertarian Party because of their indecisiveness on the issue, which to me would be a kind of passive agreement by association). As Jesus said, "For whoever is not against us is for us." Mark 9:40. And in that sense, wouldn't it be, at the least, logically "acceptable" to generalize all Democrats as pro-abortionist, if nothing more than by association? This may be a bad example, but hopefully you see my point.

So it seems to me that "generalizations" aren't necessarily logical fallacies, or intended deceptions, but can be legitimate in regards to close associations "for the sake of argument."

I'm not adamant about this, I'm just questioning. I definitely agree that there are times where generalizations are fallacies. So, I along with everyone else susceptible to generalizing, do have to be vigilant in not using generalizations in an intentionally dishonest, misleading, or deceptive way.

Oh, and what did you mean to say by this: "and he does hard his leftists"? I'm sure spell checker or something got between what you were thinking you were writing and what got posted.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Apologies... I meant "he does hate his leftists"...

Finger slip and the spell check..

It agree that generalizations aren't necessarily fallacies..And I agree with your example.. Although a few years back I wouldn't have...But I believe it was Perez who labeled the Democrats as "the Party of abortion"...

I meant only that you tend to over generalize when it comes to leftists... In my opinion... I've also heard you own up to it and admit that you were doing it for "the sake of the argument"...

It certainly wasn't a criticism... I'd rather generalize most leftists rather than try an classify them

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Oh good, I'm so relieved we're in agreement!

I would like to think that I don't "hate" democrats personally, but the ideology that they tenaciously hold to. Perhaps I need to check my spirit on that! Thanks for the nudge!