Search results

LOL Those in error, tend to resort to censorship. Free speech is the means by which fundamentals of all kinds - not just religious - are tested and either verified or discarded. I recall an exchange with Albert Einstein and a reported who stated several dozens of German scientists came out...

You are the one playing word games. Scripture says several men were worshipped: Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel and David as well as Jesus. Not obeisance. Worship. But this does not go along with your doctrine. So, it's OK to change God's words to better fit your doctrine, right?

https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/russia-ukraine-power-outages/2022/11/27/id/1098095/

A Taoist expression: Before enlightenment, chop wood. After enlightenment, chop wood.

Not sure why this is a ‘however.’ If one does not want to discuss such topics, it is not required. For instance, I do not believe in the infallibility of the popes. However, if others want to discuss this, thread after thread, that’s what forums are generally for.

That place is outside the Christian forums, a change from its proper and former place, the unorthodox forum.

Another critical point is, after one realizes the denominational doctrines are not aligned, it is a test for one’s self control to choose not to engage further on that topic IF further discussion is too unsettling. For instance, I personally am not going to spend a lot of time on threads...

Well, you are quick to speak for God with no foundation. I don’t recall the verse of such doctrinal purity that pivots salvation on NOT believing God has a ‘wife.’ If a Christian brother or sister believes such a thing, I find no verse that pivots my loving them and forgiving them ONLY if they...

That’s not true. There were those who were casting out demons - in Jesus name - that were not part of the Apostles Jesus chose. The Apostles wanted Jesus to rebuke this denominational group, acting without express direction from the Messiah. Do you recall what Jesus said about that?

Isn’t that a reason for individual response to rule enforcement of etiquette rather than doctrinal censorship?

It’s OK with me that denominations have some beliefs of secondary importance that differ.

They are Christian, just not orthodox Christian. Not much point. I'm sure a decline in post count has already been observed.

I noticed that also. The false equating honor with worship shows how Scripture undermines their dogma.

Too funny! Parsing begotten to mean not created, person different from a Being, dead with partially dead, these folks lament untwisting words to their normal meaning have the audacity to project others do what they do.

No. I’ve already explained this to you multiple times. It is not about WHEN but WHO. The verse explicitly reads that God - meaning in his wholeness, his unitarian nature - made Jesus. This means Jesus was a created being. Jesus was created to be both lord and Messiah by his God and our God...

Sons are created. Acts 2:36 God made Jesus (both lord and Messiah).

I know the Scripture. Jesus may be your rock and my rock but THE rock is Jesus’ God.

No. It shows nothing of the kind since there is not one passage in all of Scripture - certainly none in all of the NT - that identifies Jesus as any kind of father.

Of course, they have to reject agency to make their worldview appear credible.

This is a figure of speech still used today. When your Dad says, ‘your mother and I are of one mind on this,’ he is not literally claiming your parents are actually one Being. It means they are ‘on the same page.’ These figurative words of Jesus, like the figurative temple being rebuilt in 3...