One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Why is God a He
Page <<first <prev 57 of 74 next> last>>
May 22, 2019 11:40:16   #
susanblange Loc: USA
 
TommyRadd wrote:
I never said everything David Bercot believes is true, I qualified that by saying “on this subject”, but of course you only hear what you want to hear. You do the same with the scriptures, and because I don’t, you accuse me of being wrong. Once again, pathetic.

And once again all I did was quote scripture that states what I believe and once again the quoted scripture, to you and your way of thinking, is twisting the scripture.

“One who says, "I know him," and doesn't keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth isn't in him.” 1 John 2:4


And I’m still waiting for you to quote scripture that says “God is three persons in one essence”.
I never said everything David Bercot believes is t... (show quote)


If God is three persons in one, then the god of Christianity suffers from a multiple personality disorder. The earliest word for God is Elohim and it is a majestic plural. There is more to God than the Lord, but the Lord, the personal God, is one. Deuteronomy 6:4. God is not a father and son, he is a husband and wife and they are one flesh. Genesis 2:24. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh". God is Energy and the Forces in nature. Daniel 11:38. "But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces..." Energy is omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. Our sun (son) is the source of Energy for the Universe. Psalm 19:4-5. "...in them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber..." Isaiah 54:5-6. "For thy Maker is thine husband...For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God".

Reply
May 22, 2019 13:25:39   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
TommyRadd wrote:
Hey Kyle,

Incidentally, I just got a video from Amazing Polly, wherein compares leftists and their unique definitions of morals, with cults.

I think this video does a good job of exposing irrational responses from cultist, and therefore confirms my contention that these Trinitarians are reacting to me like leftists. Which is because leftists act like cultists and vice versa.

But I don't think leftists are the only ones who could be found guilty of the belligerence she uses for examples.

I think this phenomenon she’s touched on explains, in general, why it is so hard to have rational conversations with some people; it's because they are responding from a cultist fixation with the cult's artificial morals; and any affront or questioning of their morals is itself immoral! And that’s why that’s all the evidence they need to reject an alternative view.

Sound familiar? Catch my drift?

Check it out and tell me what you think...

https://youtu.be/kGkNUt5GOPI
Hey Kyle, br br Incidentally, I just got a vide... (show quote)
Whether God is one or three in one is not the question in this ping pong game. The problem is the human ego, human conceit, hubris.

Apparently what you have going here, Tommy, is a censorship campaign, passing judgement on mainstream Christians, condemning them as "cultists", proclaiming their beliefs "immoral", attempting to suppress them. Doesn't sound very Christian to me. Sounds more like Islam's condemnation of the non-believers (infidels) without the demand for their heads.

If this makes you feel good about yourself, if you get some sort of self-satisfaction in doing this, so be it.

The author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, made it clear that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among them is our freedom to practice religion as we see fit. This right is given us in our 1st Amendment.

In his brilliant essay, PROPERTY, the author of our Constitution, James Madison, wrote:
This term (property) in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.


It is the godless leftists who are intent on denying us our rights to religious freedom and property.

Any honest Christian would know that ultimately God Himself will judge.

Personally, I have no problem with your nontrinitarian beliefs, you have the right to embrace those beliefs, and, as Madison said, you have the right to communicate them. However, there is a problem when you make a concerted attempt to shove your beliefs down the throats of others, to condemn others for their beliefs, and to proclaim your beliefs superior. To do so is a fundamental tactic of the uncompromising and dogmatic ideology of liberal progressivism.

Reply
May 22, 2019 13:49:58   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Whether God is one or three in one is not the question in this ping pong game. The problem is the human ego, human conceit, hubris.

Apparently what you have going here, Tommy, is a censorship campaign, passing judgement on mainstream Christians, condemning them as "cultists", proclaiming their beliefs "immoral", attempting to suppress them. Doesn't sound very Christian to me. Sounds more like Islam's condemnation of the non-believers (infidels) without the demand for their heads.

If this makes you feel good about yourself, if you get some sort of self-satisfaction in doing this, so be it.

The author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, made it clear that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among them is our freedom to practice religion as we see fit. This right is given us in our 1st Amendment.

In his brilliant essay, PROPERTY, the author of our Constitution, James Madison, wrote:
This term (property) in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.


It is the godless leftists who are intent on denying us our rights to religious freedom and property.

Any honest Christian would know that ultimately God Himself will judge.

Personally, I have no problem with your nontrinitarian beliefs, you have the right to embrace those beliefs, and, as Madison said, you have the right to communicate them. However, there is a problem when you make a concerted attempt to shove your beliefs down the throats of others, to condemn others for their beliefs, and to proclaim your beliefs superior. To do so is a fundamental tactic of the uncompromising and dogmatic ideology of liberal progressivism.
Whether God is one or three in one is not the ques... (show quote)


Blade, excellent! I totally agree with Madison's and your takeaway about "property." Well said! We were the first country to unconditionally recognize that retaining intellectual property is a fundamental right of all mankind bestowed upon us by our Creator. This is also the case with Patents and Copyrights. The Left thinks everything should belong to the government and is subject to redistribution by any manner that their ruling elite sees fit, including telling us how we can practice religion or not practice it as is often the case.

Reply
 
 
May 22, 2019 14:29:14   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Blade, excellent! I totally agree with Madison's and your takeaway about "property." Well said! We were the first country to unconditionally recognize that retaining intellectual property is a fundamental right of all mankind bestowed upon us by our Creator. This is also the case with Patents and Copyrights. The Left thinks everything should belong to the government and is subject to redistribution by any manner that their ruling elite sees fit, including telling us how we can practice religion or not practice it as is often the case.
Blade, excellent! I totally agree with Madison's ... (show quote)
Right on, bro, right on.

Might be a good time to post Madison's essay in its entirety. Check out the highlighted statement.

James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

Reply
May 22, 2019 15:03:59   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Right on, bro, right on.

Might be a good time to post Madison's essay in its entirety. Check out the highlighted statement.

James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.
Right on, bro, right on. img src="https://static... (show quote)



Reply
May 22, 2019 18:56:15   #
rumitoid
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Right on, bro, right on.

Might be a good time to post Madison's essay in its entirety. Check out the highlighted statement.

James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.
Right on, bro, right on. img src="https://static... (show quote)


Love it! Thank you.

Reply
May 23, 2019 04:05:32   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Whether God is one or three in one is not the question in this ping pong game. The problem is the human ego, human conceit, hubris.

Apparently what you have going here, Tommy, is a censorship campaign, passing judgement on mainstream Christians, condemning them as "cultists", proclaiming their beliefs "immoral", attempting to suppress them. Doesn't sound very Christian to me. Sounds more like Islam's condemnation of the non-believers (infidels) without the demand for their heads.

If this makes you feel good about yourself, if you get some sort of self-satisfaction in doing this, so be it.

The author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, made it clear that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among them is our freedom to practice religion as we see fit. This right is given us in our 1st Amendment.

In his brilliant essay, PROPERTY, the author of our Constitution, James Madison, wrote:
This term (property) in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.


It is the godless leftists who are intent on denying us our rights to religious freedom and property.

Any honest Christian would know that ultimately God Himself will judge.

Personally, I have no problem with your nontrinitarian beliefs, you have the right to embrace those beliefs, and, as Madison said, you have the right to communicate them. However, there is a problem when you make a concerted attempt to shove your beliefs down the throats of others, to condemn others for their beliefs, and to proclaim your beliefs superior. To do so is a fundamental tactic of the uncompromising and dogmatic ideology of liberal progressivism.
Whether God is one or three in one is not the ques... (show quote)


It is written, Blade,

“preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all patience and teaching.” 2 Timothy 4:2

“Now, Lord, look at their threats, and grant to your servants to speak your word with all boldness,” Acts 4:29

“...exhort in the sound doctrine, and... convict those who contradict him.
10For there are also many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11Whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not...” Titus 1:9-11

“Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, with what will you season it?” Mark 9:50

And it is also written that he would send prophets and wise men and scribes and they would make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like you’re in your safe space with your teddy bear all cuddly and warm and contented and justified and everything....

Wait! Stop! Nope, it goes like this:

“Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets, wise men, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify; and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city;” Matt 23:34

Do you think these get persecuted and killed because they only preach positivity and confirmation?

What did you expect to feel, and how would expect to react, if you were on the wrong side of God’s wrath?

He said to me, Son of man, I send you to the children of Israel, to a nation of rebels who have rebelled against me. They and their fathers have transgressed against me even to this very day.”! Ezekiel 2:3

Let me get this straight, Blade... You are claiming that your right to have your opinion is just like your right to your personal property, therefore, you should be secure in your opinions when you step out into the streets, or Internet forums for that matter, without someone challenging your opinions, because to challenge your opinions by someone who strongly disagrees with your position is all the same as someone attempting to take away your right to your opinions. Is that about it?

So, let’s say this conversation had been about abortion, and you claim yourself to be a Christian, and we both know it, and I’m a street preacher. And I’m preaching in front of an abortion clinic and low and behold you show up with your lover intent on getting her an abortion. So I start speaking to you, as a fellow Christian in this case, that abortion is murder in the eyes of God, and furthermore, Roe vs Wade was passed on false pretenses, because it was based on lies. But even still, I tell you, God’s laws are greater than man’s and as a Christian you should obey God’s laws, and have love and compassion for that living human baby, and let it live, or you will suffer the consequences.

So, if we apply your logic as you’ve applied it here in this discussion, in that situation, I would be in the wrong for attempting to rob you of your “opinion”, and “your right to your opinion”, merely on the basis of my trying, passionately, to show you, and anyone else that would hear, that abortion is murder in the eyes of God.

Congratulations Blade, you’ve just managed to justify stripping me of my right to free speech, and my freedom of religion, in deference of politically correct speech and your perceived right to be free from someone else’s free speech and your right to keep from being exposed to someone else’s religion, based on the fact that you are offended by my mere words and my strong, vocalized, disagreement with your position, and you thereby feel threatened by, my religious convictions. And this is only in public. I can only imagine how you would feel if I were, like the apostle Paul, going from house to house to warn people of the coming judgment.

Thank you for being so quick to demonstrate my point that people who are in cults, like Trinitarianism is, share similar reactions with the cult-like attitudes of leftists and conservatives, when they will not engage in reasonable discussions, but instead renounce anyone who disagrees with them as evil based on nothing more than their ludicrous idea that criticizing their view, in and if itself, is the greater evil.

No, Blade, your right to your “safe place” wherever you go in public, or at home, doesn’t equate to me denying you your right to your opinions, nor have I. Nor do your rights to your opinions equate to stripping me of my right to free speech or my right to freedom of religion.

Nor does your discomfort at being told something, in this case the truth, contrary to your traditions which have been handed down to you by the dictates of man-made edicts, translate to your right, as a Christian, to defame through ad hominem the character of someone, in an attempt to neutralize the message of, someone who is your brother attempting to restore you to God’s truth.

Your response also bears a similarity to leftists in that you accuse others of what you yourself are doing!

Your cultic-like desire to silence the messenger, ultimately, was the same type of hatred that got Jesus killed in their attempt to silence him ultimately.

“So you testify against yourselves that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets.” Matthew 24:31

“27"Woe to you, [trinitarian] Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitened tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29"Woe to you, [trinitarian] Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous, 30and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we wouldn't have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' 31Therefore you testify to yourselves that you are children of those who killed the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33You serpents, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the judgment of Gehenna?
34Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets, wise men, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify; and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, [b]and persecute from city to city[\b]; 35that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the sanctuary and the altar.” Matthew 23:27-35

“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit! As your fathers did, so you do.” Acts 7:51

“18They called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves, 20for we can't help telling the things which we saw and heard.” Acts 4:18-20

“We ought to obey God rather than man” Acts 5:29

For it is written, and I have heeded the call:

“1I command you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom: 2preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all patience and teaching. 3For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts; 4and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to fables.” 2Timothy 4:1-4

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2019 04:13:57   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
TommyRadd wrote:
Congratulations Blade, you’ve just managed to justify stripping me of my right to free speech, and my freedom of religion
You have a right to your beliefs, they are your property. Unalienable, no one can take them from you. So, g'head, speak, preach, practice religion to your heart's content. Just don't demand that others abandon their beliefs in favor of yours. And don't condemn them for refusing to do so.

Reply
May 23, 2019 04:24:30   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
Rose42 wrote:
That has been addressed by multiple people. You choose to ignore truth.



Rose,

I certify to you that I have read everything you or Zemirah have posted in this thread at least twice, if not more when preparing my responses, and not once do I recall where anyone has quoted scripture where the apostles explained in detail (taught) or openly declared (preached), saying “God is three persons in one essence”.

You keep making the claim that I am twisting the scripture, and not listening to what you are saying. So, *if* (big if) that is true, please, for the sake of my soul, don’t make me search pages and pages of quotes, please just repeat for me here the scriptures that state, in biblical words, that “God is three persons in one essence”.

People have texted me that they agree with me. And we know Canuckus has shared my writings here with others. So if you won’t do it for me, and you truly are concerned about the souls who may be being persuaded by what I say, would you do it for their sakes?

Would you, please, quote for them, here, so they don’t have to go looking for a needle in a haystack, the scriptures that state that “God is three persons in one essence.”?

Because if you don’t or can’t, there are those reading who will read the scriptures that “command to teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim 1:3) and they may get the impression that is what you are doing.

And if you can’t or won’t quote scripture where the apostles openly declared that “God is three persons in one essence” they may get the impression that you are preaching another gospel which we are commanded not to do:

“6I marvel that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different "good news"; 7and there isn't another "good news." Only there are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the Good News of Christ. 8But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any "good news" other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed. 9As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any "good news" other than that which you received, let him be cursed.
10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? For if I were still pleasing men, I wouldn't be a servant of Christ.” Galatians 1:6-9

So, again I ask you, if you won’t do it for me, and souls are at stake according to you, whom could be being swayed by my words, maybe not even today but reading later on, could you please quote the scriptures for their soul’s sakes, that say, without any extrabiblical words or phrases, that “God is three persons in one essence”?

If you could just do this, you could instantly prove how blind I am for not seeing what is in plain sight, and what a false teacher I am.

But if you can’t, I’m afraid they’ll see that I called your bluff and you couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver, even when their souls were at stake.

Because, by refusing to deliver the goods, you are proving, beyond doubt, that you are nothing more than a common con artist.

And that being the case, that all you have is a con job, void of any substance stated in the scriptures, then this next passage was written against you and those like you:

“17These are wells without water, clouds driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever. 18For, uttering great swelling words of emptiness, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by licentiousness, those who are indeed escaping from those who live in error; 19promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for a man is brought into bondage by whoever overcomes him. 20For if, after they have escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in it and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22But it has happened to them according to the true proverb, "The dog turns to his own vomit again," and "the sow that has washed to wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:17-22

And to think all you have to do to prove me wrong is quote the scripture that says “God is three persons in one essence”.

“6He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8"For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men
—the {trinity of persons in the godhead”}, and you do many other such things."
9He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10For Moses said, '{“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one” Deut. 6:4} 11But you say, '{“God is three persons in one essence”} 12then you no longer allow him to {say “well that he is one, and there is none other but he and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more important than all -Mark 12:33-33}, 13making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this." Mark 7:6-13

Reply
May 23, 2019 04:47:02   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
You have a right to your beliefs, they are your property. Unalienable, no one can take them from you. So, g'head, speak, preach, practice religion to your heart's content. Just don't demand that others abandon their beliefs in favor of yours. And don't condemn them for refusing to do so.


I personally don’t “demand that others abandon their beliefs” just like in the abortion example, criticizing with a valid argument is not equal to “demanding others abandon their beliefs”. but in many cases God’s word does. And when God’s word does, we have an obligation to speak that word as the Spirit leads us. Thus, “we ought to obey God rather than man”. Even then, it isn’t us demanding, it is God, and we are acting as His agents. This biblical teaching of “agency” is another doctrine from the Bible that is totally lost on Trinitarians, which causes them to confuse “personalities”.

Reply
May 23, 2019 08:38:11   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
susanblange wrote:
If God is three persons in one, then the god of Christianity suffers from a multiple personality disorder. The earliest word for God is Elohim and it is a majestic plural. There is more to God than the Lord, but the Lord, the personal God, is one. Deuteronomy 6:4. God is not a father and son, he is a husband and wife and they are one flesh. Genesis 2:24. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh". God is Energy and the Forces in nature. Daniel 11:38. "But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces..." Energy is omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. Our sun (son) is the source of Energy for the Universe. Psalm 19:4-5. "...in them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber..." Isaiah 54:5-6. "For thy Maker is thine husband...For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God".
If God is three persons in one, then the god of Ch... (show quote)


God isn't three persons anymore than "he is...a "wife" or "flesh" as you presume. His corporate body of people are His wife by covenant, established by a mediator. God is immaterial, incorporeal, and invisible. Both your statements are preposterous.

In your subjective, eclectic, adding to and taking away you end up empty handed.

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2019 09:07:46   #
Rose42
 
TommyRadd wrote:
Rose,

I certify to you that I have read everything you or Zemirah have posted in this thread at least twice, if not more when preparing my responses, and not once do I recall where anyone has quoted scripture where the apostles explained in detail (taught) or openly declared (preached), saying “God is three persons in one essence”.

You keep making the claim that I am twisting the scripture, and not listening to what you are saying. So, *if* (big if) that is true, please, for the sake of my soul, don’t make me search pages and pages of quotes, please just repeat for me here the scriptures that state, in biblical words, that “God is three persons in one essence”.

People have texted me that they agree with me. And we know Canuckus has shared my writings here with others. So if you won’t do it for me, and you truly are concerned about the souls who may be being persuaded by what I say, would you do it for their sakes?

Would you, please, quote for them, here, so they don’t have to go looking for a needle in a haystack, the scriptures that state that “God is three persons in one essence.”?

Because if you don’t or can’t, there are those reading who will read the scriptures that “command to teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim 1:3) and they may get the impression that is what you are doing.

And if you can’t or won’t quote scripture where the apostles openly declared that “God is three persons in one essence” they may get the impression that you are preaching another gospel which we are commanded not to do:

“6I marvel that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different "good news"; 7and there isn't another "good news." Only there are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the Good News of Christ. 8But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any "good news" other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed. 9As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any "good news" other than that which you received, let him be cursed.
10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? For if I were still pleasing men, I wouldn't be a servant of Christ.” Galatians 1:6-9

So, again I ask you, if you won’t do it for me, and souls are at stake according to you, whom could be being swayed by my words, maybe not even today but reading later on, could you please quote the scriptures for their soul’s sakes, that say, without any extrabiblical words or phrases, that “God is three persons in one essence”?

If you could just do this, you could instantly prove how blind I am for not seeing what is in plain sight, and what a false teacher I am.

But if you can’t, I’m afraid they’ll see that I called your bluff and you couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver, even when their souls were at stake.

Because, by refusing to deliver the goods, you are proving, beyond doubt, that you are nothing more than a common con artist.

And that being the case, that all you have is a con job, void of any substance stated in the scriptures, then this next passage was written against you and those like you:

“17These are wells without water, clouds driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever. 18For, uttering great swelling words of emptiness, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by licentiousness, those who are indeed escaping from those who live in error; 19promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for a man is brought into bondage by whoever overcomes him. 20For if, after they have escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in it and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22But it has happened to them according to the true proverb, "The dog turns to his own vomit again," and "the sow that has washed to wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:17-22

And to think all you have to do to prove me wrong is quote the scripture that says “God is three persons in one essence”.

“6He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8"For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men
—the {trinity of persons in the godhead”}, and you do many other such things."
9He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10For Moses said, '{“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one” Deut. 6:4} 11But you say, '{“God is three persons in one essence”} 12then you no longer allow him to {say “well that he is one, and there is none other but he and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more important than all -Mark 12:33-33}, 13making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this." Mark 7:6-13
Rose, br br I certify to you that I have read eve... (show quote)


You lose even more credibility when you claim those who believe and know God has a triune nature are cultists. Spin away my friend. You are lost on this subject.

Reply
May 23, 2019 10:00:13   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
Rose42 wrote:
You lose even more credibility when you claim those who believe and know God has a triune nature are cultists. Spin away my friend. You are lost on this subject.

As I've suspected and maintained, you have nothing but contempt for the commandments of the Lord, and railing accusations against ministers of the Word...

"1Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.
2We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
3Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4Or do you despise the riches of his goodness, forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
5But according to your hardness and unrepentant heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath, revelation, and of the righteous judgment of God;
6who "will pay back to everyone according to their works:"
7to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory, honor, and incorruptibility, eternal life;
8but to those who are self-seeking, and don't obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, will be wrath and indignation,
9oppression and anguish, on every soul of man who works evil, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

10But glory, honor, and peace go to every man who works good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

"But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation, but said, "May the Lord rebuke you!" Jude 1:9

"10but chiefly those who walk after the flesh in the lust of defilement, and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries; 11whereas angels, though greater in might and power, don't bring a railing judgment against them before the Lord." 2 Peter 2:10-11

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false." Proverbs 30:6

"One who says, "I know him," and doesn't keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth isn't in him." 1 John 2:4

"For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them." Matthew 23:4

Reply
May 23, 2019 11:24:03   #
susanblange Loc: USA
 
TommyRadd wrote:
God isn't three persons anymore than "he is...a "wife" or "flesh" as you presume. His corporate body of people are His wife by covenant, established by a mediator. God is immaterial, incorporeal, and invisible. Both your statements are preposterous.

In your subjective, eclectic, adding to and taking away you end up empty handed.


God is a human being. He created us in his image and likeness because he was lonely. If God's church is the bride, he is a bigamist. He is unfaithful and he commits adultery. God only has one wife, who is the Lord.

Reply
May 23, 2019 12:15:08   #
TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA
 
susanblange wrote:
God is a human being. He created us in his image and likeness because he was lonely. If God's church is the bride, he is a bigamist. He is unfaithful and he commits adultery. God only has one wife, who is the Lord.





God is not a man, that he should lie, nor the son of man, that he should repent.” Number 23:19

“7Where could I go from your Spirit? Or where could I flee from your presence? 8If I ascend up into heaven, you are there. If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, you are there!” Psalm 139:7-8

“24The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't dwell in temples made with hands, 25neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things. 26He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live, and move, and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.' 29Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by art and design of man. 30The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent, 31because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead." Acts 17:24-31

“18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. 20For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. 21Because, knowing God, they didn't glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.” Romans 1:18-23

“He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.” 1 Timothy 6:16

“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” John 1:18

“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” 1 Timothy 1:7

If your god is human, he is a compound being made up of parts. Compound or complex beings must be fashioned by someone. Your god, by definition must have had a greater God than he who created or fashioned him.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 57 of 74 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.