'Bad Religion'

[Tiribulus]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
@HH and again, anyone who will read and try to understand; you nailed it. You have no idea how perfectly you nailed it.

The Father does not want you on your knees!! He wants you to pray and think on your feet! You have to know I’m not making this stuff up. It’s people like you, who have rejected the teachings of the church and have acted out of love for something or someone other than yourself, who can feel this in their soul better than most.

@ Tirib, KK, and Joab

The words of Christ:

[quote]You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.[/quote] John 8:44.

Look at the context of that quote, and look who He was talking to. Look at what they were saying to Him.

I am not posting this as a judgment, but to open your eyes.[/quote]Not being presently in possession of a properly constructable response to this, I believe I’ll pass. =] I know what you’re gonna say and I just cannot do it now.

[JayPierce]

Ok, then. Let me ask you this; How do you defeat the Devil?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:Ok, then. Let me ask you this; How do you defeat the Devil?[/quote]The devil was defeated by Jesus Christ when He stepped from that grave 2000 years ago. I spend lots of time in His Word, lots of time in His presence and lots of time with His saints learning to walk in that victory.

[JayPierce]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Not being presently in possession of a properly constructable response to this, I believe I’ll pass. =] I know what you’re gonna say and I just cannot do it now.
[/quote]

You don’t have to use a bunch of fancy words (they don’t confuse me). You don’t have an argument. There’s nothing wrong with that.

@Kai: You’re missing the point. Of course, it may well be my fault; I’m not the best at clearly conveying complex thoughts.

Only The Father could use literature written by so many people over such a length of time; picked through and translated and in so many different styles; riddled with testimony by people who weren’t even witnesses to the subject at hand (wouldn’t that be bearing false witness on the part of Luke and Mark? Or would it be hearsay?)…

And still come up with a message so clear that it cuts right through the lies, deflection, and deception.

[KingKai25]

[quote]Karado wrote:
Who is to say the “Tower Of Babel” was NOT possibly a High tech portal,
and not a Literal Tower.
Think about that one, these people were NOT stupid, they SAW the night sky too.
The Moon, The Stars…They MUST have known it was utterly IMPOSSIBLE to build
a literal tower to heaven.
[/quote]

Hey Karado, I wanted to respond to this earlier. Since our resident cult leader JayPierce decided once again to not answer any responses, but merely to spout more claims to special revelation and then has the gall to ask US questions… well, I think I might just move on.

So in response to your comment above, I agree that these people weren’t stupid, but ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. Ancient Near Easterners had no concept of an atmosphere; all the evidence suggests that they saw the sky as a ceiling upon which the stars were engraved (see Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament - John Walton). Consequently, “reaching the sky” was not as ridiculous an idea for them as it is for us; they had an entirely different cosmology than we do.

Moreover, the most likely referent of the “tower” is a ziggurat, and the purpose of ziggurats were NOT for men to reach heaven, but rather for the gods to have a means of easily coming to earth.

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Not being presently in possession of a properly constructable response to this, I believe I’ll pass. =] I know what you’re gonna say and I just cannot do it now.
[/quote]

You don’t have to use a bunch of fancy words (they don’t confuse me). You don’t have an argument. There’s nothing wrong with that.

@Kai: You’re missing the point. Of course, it may well be my fault; I’m not the best at clearly conveying complex thoughts.

Only The Father could use literature written by so many people over such a length of time; picked through and translated and in so many different styles; riddled with testimony by people who weren’t even witnesses to the subject at hand (wouldn’t that be bearing false witness on the part of Luke and Mark? Or would it be hearsay?)…

And still come up with a message so clear that it cuts right through the lies, deflection, and deception.[/quote]

Linguistics 101 - language makes thought possible. What you can think is limited by your facility with the language. If you were capable of thinking truly complex thoughts, you would be able to express those thoughts, because language precedes thought. If you cannot express complex thoughts, then I have news for you - your thoughts are obviously not that complex. Next point.

[JayPierce]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

JayPierce wrote:Ok, then. Let me ask you this; How do you defeat the Devil?[/quote]The devil was defeated by Jesus Christ when He stepped from that grave 2000 years ago. I spend lots of time in His Word, lots of time in His presence and lots of time with His saints learning to walk in that victory.

Revelation 15:2

I also saw something like a sea of glass mixed with fire, and those who had won the victory over the beast, his image, and the number of his name, were standing on the sea of glass with harps from God. They sang the song of God’s servant Moses and the song of the Lamb.

And later, in Revelation 21:7

The victor will inherit these things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son.

And for those of you who think the church is the bride of Christ; Revelation 21 also describes new Jerusalem, which is proclaimed in that chapter to be the bride of Christ.

[JayPierce]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
language makes thought possible. What you can think is limited by your facility with the language.[/quote]

Absolute falsehood.

You’re using deflection to avoid addressing the real issue, anyway. And your ad hominem attacks are indicative of your lack of a valid point.

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
language makes thought possible. What you can think is limited by your facility with the language.[/quote]

Absolute falsehood.

You’re using deflection to avoid addressing the real issue, anyway. And your ad hominem attacks are indicative of your lack of a valid point.[/quote]

Not a falsehood. Study linguistics, unless God already gave you revelation in that field too.

And I’m not deflecting. You’re the one deflecting. I’ve tried to deal with your statements. You have yet to actually deal with my claims in my EXTREMELY detailed post to you.

And my assertion that your thoughts are obviously not that complex is not an ad hominem. It’s a statement of fact. Language makes thought possible. This is why, when people attack philosophers for being unnecessarily abstruse in their language, they simply don’t realize that a higher level of linguistic facility is necessary to understand the philosophers. If you cannot understand them, it’s not because they are simply making things too complex; it’s because you lack the linguistic skills to understand their reasoning.

[JayPierce]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
language makes thought possible. What you can think is limited by your facility with the language.[/quote]

Absolute falsehood.

You’re using deflection to avoid addressing the real issue, anyway. And your ad hominem attacks are indicative of your lack of a valid point.[/quote]

Not a falsehood. Study linguistics, unless God already gave you revelation in that field too.

And I’m not deflecting. You’re the one deflecting. I’ve tried to deal with your statements. You have yet to actually deal with my claims in my EXTREMELY detailed post to you.

And my assertion that your thoughts are obviously not that complex is not an ad hominem. It’s a statement of fact. Language makes thought possible. This is why, when people attack philosophers for being unnecessarily abstruse in their language, they simply don’t realize that a higher level of linguistic facility is necessary to understand the philosophers. If you cannot understand them, it’s not because they are simply making things too complex; it’s because you lack the linguistic skills to understand their reasoning. [/quote]
I already responded to that wall of text.

Language does not make thought possible. You can think without words. As a matter of fact, words slow your thoughts down. For an example, think through tying your shoe. Now think through it again, but put words to that series of actions.

I suspect you are not as educated as you let on. Language facilitates the exchange of thought, not the thought itself.

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
language makes thought possible. What you can think is limited by your facility with the language.[/quote]

Absolute falsehood.

You’re using deflection to avoid addressing the real issue, anyway. And your ad hominem attacks are indicative of your lack of a valid point.[/quote]

Not a falsehood. Study linguistics, unless God already gave you revelation in that field too.

And I’m not deflecting. You’re the one deflecting. I’ve tried to deal with your statements. You have yet to actually deal with my claims in my EXTREMELY detailed post to you.

And my assertion that your thoughts are obviously not that complex is not an ad hominem. It’s a statement of fact. Language makes thought possible. This is why, when people attack philosophers for being unnecessarily abstruse in their language, they simply don’t realize that a higher level of linguistic facility is necessary to understand the philosophers. If you cannot understand them, it’s not because they are simply making things too complex; it’s because you lack the linguistic skills to understand their reasoning. [/quote]
I already responded to that wall of text.

Language does not make thought possible. You can think without words. As a matter of fact, words slow your thoughts down. For an example, think through tying your shoe. Now think through it again, but put words to that series of actions.

I suspect you are not as educated as you let on. Language facilitates the exchange of thought, not the thought itself.[/quote]

Incorrect again, sir. Language is NOT a nomenclature for pre-existent thoughts. I can cite you a half dozen authors - linguists, philosophers of language, etc. - who make this point. You are using “common sense,” which is almost as big a deception as the nonsense you are proclaiming about Scripture.

And for future reference (this goes for everyone), an argument is not an ad hominem simply because of a statement indicting the opponent. If JayPierce says, " X is true," and I reply, “X is not true” and provide solid reasons for WHY X isn’t true, I can tag the remark,“you illiterate fool” to the end of my argument WITHOUT MY ARGUMENT BECOMING AN AD HOMINEM. Strictly speaking, an ad hominem fallacy only describes a scenario in which JayPierce says, "X Is true, " and I respond, “X cannot be true, because you are dumb/illiterate/foolish, etc.” THAT is a true ad hominem.

And you did NOT deal with my statements. You simply made some unproven, unjustified assertion that God can use all these different texts. Did you actually READ my post? Because your assertion fundamentally MISSES several of the points I made.

[KingKai25]

@ JayPierce - this is what you wrote…

Only The Father could use literature written by so many people over such a length of time; picked through and translated and in so many different styles; riddled with testimony by people who weren’t even witnesses to the subject at hand (wouldn’t that be bearing false witness on the part of Luke and Mark? Or would it be hearsay?)…

And still come up with a message so clear that it cuts right through the lies, deflection, and deception.

The Father Himself wrote the entire Bible through the hands of men. It is one big riddle. Not to trivialize it, mind you. This is the most extensive and most important riddle ever in the history of man.

Did God USE literature written by so many people (i.e., did he use already existing texts) to reveal these things to YOU, or did HE write all this literature, inserting the “message” into the texts during their composition? Which is it?

Moreover, if this message is so clear, why are YOU the only one who has found it? More importantly, why are you unable (if it is so clear) to defend it without deflecting? And you are deflecting - you didn’t actually deal with a single one of my arguments.

[JayPierce]

I apologize. I forgot about this post.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The metaphor of leaven or yeast is used many times in the new testament to signify a growing entity or influence. Both of good and evil. In the case of the pharisees it was their private interpretations and hypocrisy that Jesus was warning of. In short. In the 23rd chapter of Matthew he spelled it out pretty clearly.[/quote]
The yeast represents the influence that is transplanted from one church to another. Paul was a Pharisee that Satan transplanted into the Christian church.

One errant yeast spore can contaminate an entire batch of wine.

There is no “official story” that I’m aware of.

I was referring to orthodox belief.

It appears the Lord blinded him in an overpowering demonstration of sovereign authority. “I am Jesus who you are persecuting and right now I’m showing you that I’m also God and you WILL do what I say”.

That is not characteristic of Christ.

Paul was persecuted BY the Romans and though a citizen of Rome was sent by the Jews to persecute the church. Not Rome.

I did not know that.

[JayPierce]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Moreover, if this message is so clear, why are YOU the only one who has found it?[/quote]
I didn’t find it. I’m not smart enough to figure this out on my own. You haven’t been paying attention, and you certainly don’t sound like a believer in The Father.

More importantly, why are you unable (if it is so clear) to defend it without deflecting? And you are deflecting - you didn’t actually deal with a single one of my arguments.

I pointed out multiple Scriptural references that prove my point.

You did not post Scriptural evidence that opposes it, and it is pointless to argue about linguistics and literary style.

Post a valid point, and I will respond.

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

Paul was persecuted BY the Romans and though a citizen of Rome was sent by the Jews to persecute the church. Not Rome.

I did not know that.
[/quote]

How? If you are a sufficiently careful reader of biblical texts to actually discover mysteries hidden from every other biblical scholar, how could you have missed this? It’s in Acts (22:3-5)!

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Moreover, if this message is so clear, why are YOU the only one who has found it?[/quote]
I didn’t find it. I’m not smart enough to figure this out on my own. You haven’t been paying attention, and you certainly don’t sound like a believer in The Father.

More importantly, why are you unable (if it is so clear) to defend it without deflecting? And you are deflecting - you didn’t actually deal with a single one of my arguments.

I pointed out multiple Scriptural references that prove my point.

You did not post Scriptural evidence that opposes it, and it is pointless to argue about linguistics and literary style.

Post a valid point, and I will respond.[/quote]

I’d love to know what constitutes a valid point, JayPierce. Should I misinterpret some verses and throw them up on a post?

Because believe it or not, the issue here is valid interpretation - what is valid and what isn’t. For that, questions of literary style are PARAMOUNT. I showed you WHY, based on (1) the context of Habakkuk, and (2) the nature of Hebrew poetry, SHL cannot rightly be translated as Saul. That matters, because it shows that you misinterpreted that verse! Well, not YOU really; it’s actually the pseudo-prophet lawyer whose website you stole the argument from.

If you misinterpret a passage, THEN YOU’RE WRONG.

And once again, claims to spiritual authority are meaningless. I don’t think you “found” anything; I think you’ve just grossly misinterpreted Scriptural passages and chalked up these misinterpretations to the providence of God.

And I don’t worship YOUR God. I worship the only true God, creator of heaven and earth, who revealed himself to Moses as Yahweh, chose the people of Israel has his own treasured possession, and has invited Gentiles like me to become his own children, so that we, along with Jesus, have the right to call him Father.

[JayPierce]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
You simply made some unproven, unjustified assertion that God can use all these different texts.
[/quote]

So you believe that God can create the world as we know it, but you don’t believe that he can use the written word of several men, combined in one book, to warn us of how the Devil has deceived the world?

You are a snake, sir.

[JayPierce]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
And I don’t worship YOUR God. I worship the only true God, creator of heaven and earth, who revealed himself to Moses as Yahweh, chose the people of Israel has his own treasured possession, and has invited Gentiles like me to become his own children, so that we, along with Jesus, have the right to call him Father.[/quote]

This is what I’m trying to tell you. The Father is the true God. Go back to where Jacob made the covenant. Could you wrestle with God and not lose? Would God not know your name? Would God refuse to tell you who He is? Would He reward you for deception?

Jacob said “for I have seen God face to face”

The apostle John said “no one has ever seen God.”

I don’t know how else to put it.

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
You simply made some unproven, unjustified assertion that God can use all these different texts.
[/quote]

So you believe that God can create the world as we know it, but you don’t believe that he can use the written word of several men, combined in one book, to warn us of how the Devil has deceived the world?

You are a snake, sir.[/quote]

Never said, “sir.” The issue here is NOT whether God can do that (and what an ADORABLE attempt to once again evade my questions), but whether or not YOU are correct in YOUR assertion that God hid the truth all over the place in a set of texts that themselves deceive. THe classic Christian position is that there is NO deception in ANY of the canonical texts; you, “sir,” are saying that many of the canonical texts ARE deceptive, and that within some of the LESS deceptive ones, God inserted slivers of truth.

If that’s the case, “sir,” then how does your god evade the charge of being the one to mislead people? He let his church (that includes the apostles even BEFORE Paul) mistakenly think that ALL the Old Testament texts were COMPLETELY INSPIRED (not only in little parts of a handful of them); he let Paul come in and trick people and didn’t even have the DECENCY to tell them what his rather stupid sign of “blinding” Paul meant; worse, he actually HEALED Paul of the sign. Man, if he had just left Paul blind, we wouldn’t be in the mess YOU seem to think we are in.

[JayPierce]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
You simply made some unproven, unjustified assertion that God can use all these different texts.
[/quote]

So you believe that God can create the world as we know it, but you don’t believe that he can use the written word of several men, combined in one book, to warn us of how the Devil has deceived the world?

You are a snake, sir.[/quote]

Never said, “sir.” [/quote]
Never said what? That my assertion that God used all those different texts was unjustified?