Cynic

Ckeer, One could equally dismiss two persons who claim to own several pairs of brown shoes. One would not necessarily be correct in doing so. http://cloud.prohosting.com/ttatwavs/Barney/8qts.wav

The Christ of Scripture upholds all things by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3) and is spoken of as having made heaven and earth (Hebrews 1:10-12).

Scripture attests that Jesus Christ is God and it attests that Jesus Christ is man. From those scriptural attestations orthodox Christology holds that, at Christ's incarnation, Christ's eternal divine nature and temporally beginning human nature were forever joined (without mixture) in Christ's single person. It holds that Jesus Christ was born, was tempted, suffered, died and rose from the dead in his human nature -- and that he was not subject to temptation, suffering or death in his divine nature. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04169a.htm http://www.datarat.net/DR/Lex-T.html#TheopaschiteHeresy http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm

Laleo, What a post! (Your next-to-last one.) If I ever become dictator of some country, you and Satori can expect cushy cabinet positions.

Abigail, I prefer a "teeny tiny heart" that goes around openly accosting its various particular and general classes of opponents to one that veils delusion, antipathy and a will to self-emergence as enlightenment, compassion and virtue.

Sirguessalot, Though you apparently have not made an explicit claim to have attained some Baptist Bob- and Joe Sixpack-transcending state of being, existence and/or consciousness, you preen and pontificate as if some such thing can be actualized and you have significant knowledge of it.

And, Sirguessalot, Do you think you are some superior soul who has passed to a higher state of being?

ckeer, Up yours, too.

SI = Spanish Inquisition

A cynical quip directed against the mystical upchucking of GS's resident preening Newager. I'm actually not a fan of the SI.

Where's Torquemada when you need him?

Enters Garth -- ascribing to his opponent his own, Garthian, attributes.

Yeah, JustThinking: Just a showing of the facts. Although there very possibly would have ultimately been some taunting and sarcastic statements to top off my part in this affair, I began with essentially an informative approach. (I'm really not very brutal. Ive used the rack on fewer than a dozen heretical opponents.)

And smugly barking some classless quip.

Enters the ever-never-too-continent Garthella Z. -- reinventing and spewing hyperbole at her opponent.

CES had no right to be using the Alpha & Omega Ministries logo, and I wasn't in the mood to sit by and say nothing about it after I recognized AOM's logo on CES' website. (Even the color variations on the logo were the same.) As for the content of CES' youth newsletter, Dartanian3m, I find Ryan Maher's piece "Trinitarian or Unitarian, Does it really matter?" more contemptible than the logo affair. Maher's piece is a superficial tirade against the doctrine of the Trinity -- dressed up as an explanation of why more Jews and Muslims have not converted to Christ. It comes from someone involving himself in gratuitous speculation rather than in biblically informed commentary concerning those who reject the gospel and the person of Christ. When I started this thread, I had focused on AOM's logo at CES' site and Ryan Maher's piece in the newsletter to which the logo was linked. I was pretty much loaded to pursue, flush out, lay out and spend time humiliating some unrestrained and conscienceless Socinian bear who had entered a Trinitarian camp and began carrying off from the identity of an apologetic ministry. After I took note of the photos that appear on the first edition of CES' youth newsletter, however, the perpetrator morphed from a vicious predator to a ....ing-on-everything cub. I do not desire to continue this in such a way as to cause distress to that type of critter. I think, however, that CES should publicly acknowledge Alpha and Omega Minstries' rights to, and disclaim CES' now apparently discontinued use of, the subject logo. ***** Concerning Danny's question about the origin of the AOM logo, here's part of a log of an IRC conversation: (Cynic) DrOakley: Is that logo something you guys came up with, rather than some historical piece of art? (DrOakley) Original artwork. (Cynic) :)--> (DrOakley) Don Falconer made it.

It's gone. http://www.christianeducational.org

I would possibly be more aggressive than I am presently being if the first edition of CES' "Alpha & Omega" newsletter did not have me wondering whether some kid is at the bottom of this.

By the way, here is what appears to be the first edition of CES' "Alpha & Omega" newsletter: http://christianeducational.org/monthlylet..._2002_10-12.pdf

It seems James White was unaware of CES' apparent use of the logo until I informed him about it in his #prosapologian IRC chat room.

How did CES come up with the logo for its "Alpha & Omega" youth newsletter? Check out the Alpha & Omega logo on CES' page: http://www.christianeducational.org/ (It is on the left, less than halfway down the page.) And at the top of the page the image links to: http://christianeducational.org/monthlylet..._2002_10-12.pdf Compare that logo to the logo at: http://www.aomin.org Here's an archived aomin.org page having a previous version of the logo: http://web.archive.org/web/19980429004807/.../www.aomin.org/ ***** CES principals and operatives: Check your e-mail, fellows. You should by now have a message waiting for you from Alpha & Omega Ministries director James White. [Edited to correct a grammatical omission.]

It would, of course, take something other than that for Ms. Liberty to appear to have justification for her excessive, categorical assertions. Following are links to some information about a living academic example of one problem with appeals to the authority of Ivy League ethicists: Peter Singer Students Protest Princeton Professor Who Advocates Infanticide Pro-infanticide prof awarded ethics prize A professor of infanticide at Princeton

Bumping.

Epistemic Christological Socinian Opine

It is extremely doubtful JAL has the epistemic basis to support his generalizations as facts rather than suspicions. Worse: The spectacle of a Christological Socinian and an open theist such as JAL criticizing the community of Christian believers for failure to believe scriptural testimony that contradicts traditional beliefs is somewhat similar to the spectacle Charles Manson would make if he opined against some allegedly prevalent antisocial tendency among Republicans.