1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustNo i don't get your point, where is your evidence that they adhere to the principles that were clearly cited for you. Are we expected to simply believe you, that they adhere to these principles because you say so? You stated that you were aware of many groups who adhere to these principles and yet you have provided not a shred of evidence that they do.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]I have not claimed that Jehovahs witnesses have the exclusive right to say anything, in fact I did not even mention them. You simply made it up.
If I remember correctly, you said to Dive that the likelihood for finding other groups as True Christians as you, (JWs) is as likely as time travel, or words t ...[text shortened]... e in the open, for all to see. As Jesus famously commanded: By their fruits you must judge them.[/b]
The reference to time travel sigh . . . .do i really need to spell everything out....was that its theoretically possible but unlikely. Thus i hold that as far as i am aware its theoretically possible that there are others besides Jehovahs witnesses who adhere to these principles but unlikely.
5 edits
-Removed-Its unlikely in my experience for i have not come across anyone nor has anyone managed to produce any evidence of anyone despite being asked numerous times. Lets take a look at the major denominations. Catholics and Protestants. They killed each other by the millions in two world wars, that would rule out about 95 percent of Christianity failing to adhere to the first principle. Muslims also have been killing each other for centuries so that rules them out too. Who is left that you think it likely? Hindus, Jews, Sikhs? Unlikely.
They are not my principles, they are found in the Bible, i did not author the Bible. In what sense are they my principles?
Originally posted by googlefudgeSomething tells me you consider me (or, at very least, my message) a threat.
Continuing your unbroken streak of stupidity I see. Well done.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lack
Noun
"The state of being without or not having enough of something"
"Synonyms
[b]absence, want, need, deficiency, dearth, insufficiency, shortage, shortfall, scarcity, paucity, unavailability, scarceness, undersupply, ...[text shortened]... st in English:
noun
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:"[/b]
I am confident you couldn't possibly consider me stupid, at least not with an honest assessment unbridled by personal prejudices or perhaps jealousy.
I'm inclined to think your reactions are little more than unfiltered subjective fear.
What you're afraid of, well, that's up to you to figure out.
My dime store psychoanalysis has reached 9.9 cents, so you're on your own from here.
Dictionaries are fun, aren't they?
They give the person quoting them a sense of rightness, of surety of scope and clarity.
Nothing wrong with that, really.
Unless the perspective is off, of course.
A picture is worth 1000 words, but what if the picture is blurred?
I prefer original meaning, if, for no other reason, the etymology expands and amplifies the word and imbues it with nuance and underpining of intent.
Instead of listening to what a contemporary source has to offer (like listening to my friends tell me how cool I am), I would prefer to listen to an ancient standard.
You do you, though.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAtheists don't want to be free of something they don't believe. They want to be free from people who believe something they don't believe.
I love me some freedom.
For instance: I am free to eat... as long as there is food.
If no food exists, can eating really be a thing?
Which is okay, but if it escalates into them solving their problem by eliminating the problem (us) this is when it can become problematic. And anyone who thinks this won't or can't happen is woefully ignorant, because it's happened before.
Originally posted by lemon limeAtheists don't want to be free of something they don't believe. They want to be free from [b]people who believe something they don't believe.[/b]
Atheists don't want to be free of something they don't believe. They want to be free from [b]people who believe something they don't believe.
Which is okay, but if it escalates into them solving their problem by eliminating the problem (us) this is when it can become problematic. And anyone who thinks this won't or can't happen is woefully ignorant, because it's happened before.[/b]
Free from theists?
Have you been drinking?
This little axiom-sounding nonsense is nearly gibberish, were it not for syntax.
Which is okay, but if it escalates into them solving their problem by eliminating the problem (us)...
Paranoid much?
It might come as a complete shock to your delicate system, but freedom of thought and freedom itself finds its source in God.
We wouldn't be in this current state had man not been given a shot at doing things any way he wanted to do them.
So let's not play that pathetically-worn and inappropriate card of elimination ala oppression.
And anyone who thinks this won't or can't happen is woefully ignorant, because it's happened before.
The saying is "Power corrupts and absoulte power corrupts absolutely."
Anyone who thinks man is exempt in any iteration is woefully ignorant.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI live only in the material world. I work to earn money to buy food, which i am then free to eat. (Unless the dog gets there first). I'm not holding out for manna. I exist on food found in reality, that i can touch and taste.
I love me some freedom.
For instance: I am free to eat... as long as there is food.
If no food exists, can eating really be a thing?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeSo does squiggly the red squirrel, whats your point.
I live only in the material world. I work to earn money to buy food, which i am then free to eat. (Unless the dog gets there first). I'm not holding out for manna. I exist on food found in reality, that i can touch and taste.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not calling into question anything, and for the umpteenth time I know what the Clan Forum is for, the real question which you seem to be trying your best to avoid is - why are you continually posting in that forum calling people petty, childlike names? I'm struggling to understand why a self declared 'ordained minister of God', and father to two children is acting like a teenage girl?! Maybe you could enlighten me Robert.
Taunt, goad or ridicule rival clans, or just discuss this team based feature.
your attempt to use this to call into question my christianity or as you put it christian perspective is a real no brainer, the clan forum is specifically designed for, get this,
Taunt, goad or ridicule rival clans!
meep! meep!