Cynic

That there has been a number of women who have reported VP used a story about a doctor's mistake in propositioning them (note that VP was probably in his 50s, and they in their teens to early 20s at the time) gives some accusations about Wierwille sexually exploiting young Wayferesses a very high level of probability. Concerning VP's claim to be teaching the Word like it hadn't been known since the first century, well 'ol VP was a self-promoting megalomaniac and a false teacher. ***** Goey! How are you doing?

Appreciating the implications of JAL's argument, the anti-theist curmudgeon resolves never to let his eyes wander from JAL's hands during a game of poker.

I do wish 'ol heresiarch Vic were around to have experienced the disintegration of his sect and public exposure from some of TWI's now-maturing-but-then-teenaged-or-just-past-teenaged females.

"Can anyone recommend good sources to check out on this subject?" ***** The only thing I would know to read, reread and again and again reread is the Psalms, in order to mold my heart's cry and my expectation towards the sovereign and merciful God.

Links to some relevant articles appear at this page: http://aomin.org/General.html

Ma?.

Good link, Def.

Jeff, Do you care to try demonstrating how the view of Christ promoted by CES' principals involves a recognition -- rather than entails the denial -- that Jesus Christ is the unique or only begotten Son of God? If you cannot demonstrate it, maybe you could fetch one or more of CES' principals to attempt to demonstrate it.

Okay, Mark, Can't demonstrate it from CES' materials? Demonstrate it of your own view, in your own words. You have not demonstrated it. Your affirmation that there is no other savior but Jesus concerns his relation to men, not the sense in which he is the unique or only begotten Son of God.

Stop shuffling, Mark, and demonstrate something. What, in CES' view -- or yours -- is there about the sense in which Jesus Christ is Son of God that is categorically so different from that sense in which Adam was the Son of God that Jesus Christ is said to be God's unique or only begotten Son?

Mark, Please demonstrate that CES' principals have maintained that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in a sense that is unique, rather than in the same sense that Adam was the son of God.

I have not yet bothered to read much of Schoenheit's piece to which Jeff linked, but scrolled through it, noticing the assertion "Anyone who studies the subject of the kingdom of God knows that it has not come yet" -- the opening sentence of the last paragraph of Part 1 and the second paragraph of Part 2. Just prior to that assertion, Schoenheit had maintained that Jesus did not know enough truth to state the truth when he said "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28). And before that, Schoenheit wrote: "People who say that the teaching of Christ cannot refer to the Second Coming for the simple reason that it is future are using circular reasoning. The assumption is that Jesus cannot be mistaken for any reason, then using that assumption, an 'explanation' for what he meant other than what the clear implication of his words are elsewhere in Scripture is sought for." In making his arguments, Schoenheit, of course, has his own implicit assumptions: 1. That Jesus was fallible. 2. That Jesus could speak falsely concerning future events. 3. That he, Schoenheit, can and does possess eschatological knowledge more accurately and comprehensively than Jesus did. 4. That he, Schoenheit, can and does have an interpretive insight sufficient to have obtained and now to communicate an eschatological view that requires dismissing some of Jesus' words as error. 5. That where it has been obvious that his, Schoenheit's, eschatological view is utterly inconsistent with statements of Jesus, it is Jesus who failed, rather than he, Schoenheit, who is deficient in understanding and/or a captive of Socinian Christology and wielder of its resultant impieties. Although I do not embrace as an inerrant eschatological statement the pieces at the following URLs (I would characterize myself eschatologically as generally clueless rather than as an amillennialist), this stuff appears biblically well-grounded in its recognition that an eschatological in-breaking of the Kingdom of God was occurring in Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension, and that the Kingdom of God is now "Already" and "Not-Yet." In what appears faithful to biblical indications, but which could incinerate the circuits of a Bullingerite's brain, these pieces maintain that there is an overlap of the present age and the age to come. http://two-age.org/beliefs_index/two-age.htm http://two-age.org/beliefs_index/eschatology.htm

CES' Mere Super-Cool, Sinless, Unique Human Being In Jeff's post it is obvious that JAL and those he speaks for characterize Jesus Christ as a mere "genetic equivalent" of Adam who managed to distinguish himself from Adam by always making good "free will choices." It follows, of course, from such a view that Adam, had he always made good "free will choices," could have been everything Jesus Christ is. The view of Christ CES pushes is that he was a "unique human being," and not the unique Son of God. ***** Scripture's Unique Son of God "It is a startling thing to believe with Jesus that God has a Son -- and one and only begotten Son. So focus on this for a moment. Don't fly over it because it's so commonplace. It is amazing and wonderful and mind-boggling -- and oh so crucial for our salvation from perishing. "In calling the Son of God 'only begotten' Jesus means to distinguish the only begotten Son of God from sons who are made or adopted as sons. The angels are called 'sons of God' (Job 1:6), and we Christians are called 'sons of God' (Rom. 8:14-16). Angels are 'sons of God' by virtue of being directly created by God; and Christians are 'sons of God' by virtue of being adopted into his family through our being joined to Christ by the Holy Spirit. "But the 'one and only begotten Son' is not a Son by creation or by adoption, but by begetting. And begetting is simply a human analogy for what is beyond our comprehension. But it carries a crucial truth, as C.S. Lewis said: 'Rabbits beget rabbits; horses beget horses; humans beget humans, not statues or portraits; and God begets God -- not humans and not angels.['] "God's only begotten Son is God. And there never was a time when God had not begotten his Son. Because the begetting of the Son is equally eternal with the existence of the God the Father. The standing forth of the Son as a perfect, personal image and representation and equal of the Father so that they exist as two persons with one divine essence is simply what it means to be God. This is the way God has existed from all eternity, without beginning. This is the point of John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. "In other words, the Word, Jesus, is the only begotten Son, and co-eternal with the Father.. "There is God. And God has a one and only begotten Son." -- John Piper, The Design: Love (From http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/94/121194.html.)

Say three "Defeat Hillarys" and swill two Budweisers, my son. :)-->

Lindy, Long Gone's post might have been sloppily worded (which would be quite uncharacteristic for Long Gone), but, as it is written, his post implies that if faith is informed by attempts "to draw logical conclusions" from the Bible under an assumption of its infallibility (I prefer the word inerrancy), faith enters a realm where it is refuted by logic.

Long Gone, I didn't think you would care to try. :)-->

Long Gone wrote, "Evan may not appreciate my endorsement, but he exhibits what I have called, in Plotinus' words, a 'reasonable faith.' By that, I don't mean one that can be supported by logic, but rather, one that is not refuted by logic. Why? The main reason is that it is not based on logic, particularly not on trying to draw logical conclusions from a supposedly infallible, 'magical self-interpreting Bible.' It's a bit of a paradox that what makes such faith 'reasonable' is that it is not based on reason. If it were, it wouldn't be faith." ***** Long Gone, Care to try demonstrating that faith, if it is informed by biblical exegesis and hermeneutics -- under the presupposed authority, inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture -- is subject to logical refutation?

David, To my knowledge, no one has indicated they think you are posting here under two names. The confusion that has arisen concerns whether or not you are the same D. A. Reed (whose first name is also David) who is a former Jehovah's Witness figure who has written about and against the Watchtower Society. The discussion began with Rafael's (Raf) post on the 16th post on this page. I responded in the 3rd post on this page. In the 5th post on the latter page, Refiner (an ex-JW) seems to identify you with the ex-JW named David Reed. In the 6th post, I stated that I think that you and he are different fellows. In the 7th post, Rafael says he's always thought you were he. In the 9th post, I again state I do not think so. Things continue in the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th posts of that page, and come up again in this thread. ***** A couple of books by the ex-JW fellow named David Reed are: Blood on the Altar: Confessions of a Jehovah Witness Minister Index of Watchtower Errors: 1879 To 1989

Unless he's gone through some changes, this forum's D. A. Reed is NOT a Jesuit.

Rafael, You've apparently sat around playing with that idea that alien should be characterized as a univocal term for just far too long. ***** No, I'm fairly confident, but am not sure, that D. A. and the other D. A. are not the same guy.

Refiner, I sort of enjoy being an a$$hole. Don't take my invective too seriously. I think that is a different David Reed.

Rafael wrote, "I'm having a bit of a hard time with this. "I too am an ex-JW, but unlike Refiner, I'm also ex-TWI. "How would I feel if someone who's not ex-TWI showed up and started posting on how we all need to accept the Trinity? Don't know. It hasn't happened (I'm assuming DA Reed is ex-TWI, but I don't know that for sure). "Do people who are not ex-TWI have to respect some kind of boundaries before posting? Is it trolling if they try to start an interesting/controversial discussion? I should hope not. But at the same time I understand how folks like Dot and Goey are feeling." ***** I don't know D. A. Reed except through his posts on forums frequented by ex-Wayfers. I remember him indicating, however, he had known someone who was involved with or who had been involved with TWI, and that he had not himself been involved with the sect. Refiner's posts have not yet bothered me much. I point out, nonetheless, that Refiner has apparently made 383 posts (well, that was his indicated tally when I started writing this post) in scantly over one month, and has seven threads sitting on the first pages of the "Doctrinal" and "About the Way" forums. D. A. Reed has made all the apologetic and other points he has made in the present version of this forum in a GS-indicated total of 29 posts, since registering more than two years ago. Rafael's analogy is, rather characteristically, superficial. D. A. Reed's posting on ex-Wayfer forums is not equivalent to some Arian-turned-cult-romping-atheist-windbag's cyber-joining of himself to some ex-Wayfers. ***** "The natural man then assumes that he has the final criterion of truth within himself. Every form of authority that comes to him must justify itself by standards inherent in man and operative apart from the authority that speaks." -- Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith

Galen, I concur with the previous poster. If the problem occurs only while you're seated on the toilet, a thicker "raised" toilet seat might provide relief. If it occurs while you're standing, however, you might try standing on stools of various heights and contacting some Hollywood agents.

Relational Subordination, Evaluative Consistency and Socinian Hags. Some ex-Wayfers argue that Jesus' subjection to the Father contraindicates there being equality between them. If biblical indication of relational subordination signifies an inequality that involves an inferiority of nature, however, every married woman on this forum is inferior in what constitutes her essential nature to that which constitutes the essential nature of her husband.

Arians hold that God created Christ and that Christ subsequently created all other things.