Oakspear

Mike, I thought it belonged in Doctrinal - my opinion. There are moderators who monitor this forum. I don't know what the process is for moving threads to other forums is, but I'll let them worry about it. By the way, I don't view Doctrinal as a dungeon. I've been a semi-regular here for quite a while; always enjoyed the give and take of serious topics.

This isn't going to be anywhere near a complete answer! The differences among the different denominations are sometimes large and sometimes subtle. Often Protestant denominations have more in common with other groups or even with Catholics than they do with churches of similar names. Churches in the United States are often quite different than those with the same name in Europe, largely because of the tendency in the US toward congregational participation (related to democratic principles). Churches and denominations can be differentiated by doctrine, by practice, or by the method of church government. New denominations have sprung up in response to revivals or "awakenings", or even due to societal concerns like slavery. I'd suggest the above website, or some good thick books on church history.

Mike, you didn't vote :D--> Either that or you disagree with yourself

doh! Burned again! :D-->

Companion Bible Appendix 23 "The Sons of God" in Gen 6.2,4 And on and on...Bullinger clearly believed that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels. It was Wierwille who believed (rightly, IMHO) that both the sons of God and the daughters of men were human.

dante: I worked for the OWH from 1983-85 and 1987-1999 as a sales rep and regional sales manager. I believe I am less than 2 hours from you - about one hour from Nebraska City. Maybe we can get together in Neb city for coffee or a burger. Car pooling is available to the weenie roast :D-->

Mike believes and propounds that PFAL is "God's Word Reissued" and similar ideas. I won't try to summarize, but try to be familiar with the Mike Threads before voting ;)--> Mike claims that there are lurkers who agree with his message, but don't post. Here's their chance to anonymously give their opinion.

Even though I'm an agnostic myself, I don't see how a bad experience with a cult would necessarily turn one off from Christianity or God. Unless one believes it was somehow God's fault. I can see being leary of a system that asks unquestioning acceptance or obedience though

Well Zix, you do have a reputation to maintain ;)-->

Yes Kevlar, Bullinger did believe it. Recently there was a thread on demonology that talked about this as well.

Joe Corpsgrad's assignment: Go to a city with one small fellowship and split it into two tiny ones so that you can call it a branch. Since there are no other cities in your state with a Way presence, you're now the Limb Coordinator too. The next state over has no fellowships, just a few scattered subscribers to the Way Rag and the Sunday Propoganda Tapes, so you are annointed Limb Coordinator for that state too. You report to a Region Coordinator who "oversees" three states in the same manner that you coordinate your two in a five-state region. God bless Joe!

I agree P-Mosh, if they get rude with me, it's open season! As far as doctrinal discussions go, I don't find too many who could hold their own in one of those anyway.

Especially door-to-door? Depends on my mood I guess. A few months ago I let a couple of Mormon missionaries into my apartment. Nice guys, not very convincing though. I just wanted to hear what they had to say. A week later I was in need of a jump start and they happened along at just the right time! A few days ago a guy wanted to do "an informal survey about religion" while I was at the University fountains. I politely answered his questions, but didn't encourage him. I get a little irritated at people who think that it's fun to treat door-to-door witnesssers like crap. A story about door-to-door that keeps popping up so much that I swear it's an urban legend: The person telling the story knows someone who came to the door in a towel and invited some JW's in, but cautioned them that it was a "nudist home", or guys actually answering the door nude. No one ever claims to be the one who actually did it, just knows someone -->

In 2001 they announced all the new Limb & Region Coordinators at a Pentecost service that we heard via phone hook-up. I had all the assignments posted on Grease Spot that night. (That's part of how WayGB nailed me :D-->)

Refiner: I'd say Wordwolf's estimate is right. There's a lot of people who don't say what their religous beliefs are, and there are quite a few that are still trying to figure it out, not ready to embrace Christianity whole-heartedly, nor willing to stake out the atheist camp. We've got Christians of all persuasions here, as well as Buddhists, Wiccans, and other religions. Enough agnostics to form a pickup softball game and a handful of atheists. AS JF said: "...as long is there is a mutual respect for each other's beliefs/non-beliefs... There have been a few here that like to cram their theology or lack there of down your throat, that's when folks get ....ed..." I go along with that :D--> And before you say that Agnosticism is the "only logical position to take", have a few conversations with Zixar and some of the other "PhD believers" around here :P-->. I disagree with them, but they make me work for it

Hooner: Martindale took Genesis 3:6 and "defined" virtually every word as having a primarily sexual meaning. A simple look at a concordance or any other research source showed that his definitions were wrong. By the time he gets to the end of the verse he is convinced that the original sin of mankind was "in the sexual catagory", because of the "sexual imagry" in the verse (imagry that isn't there unless you make up your own definitions). Since he has already defined homosexuality as the lowest form of degradation in the sexual catagory, then the original sin of mankind "must have been" homosexuality. Since Eve was (obviously) a woman, then she "must have" had lesbian sex with the devil, who had "come into concretion" as a beautiful woman. Adam's sin was that he did not speak up, but by his silence approved of Eve's sin. There's more detail, but its not really necessary IMHO.

What? Do they have about three people graduating this year?

No

Good point miller, but to me it's more like seeing the "written record" of how the toaster came to be, but I can't find any toasters anywhere, although I run into plenty of people who claim to own toasters. I too can own a toaster if I just have faith.

So what? The existance of a landmark or structure mentioned in the bible doesn't answer the question posed in the title of thread. Absence of any supporting evidence doesn't disprove it either.

by Imbus :D--> thanks Socks quoth Wordwolf

Originally posted by def59: Here is a response I saw in reference to biblical unitarianism I thought some might enjoy to take a whack at. -DEf It's very "wackable", def! I've seen much better defenses or explanations of the trinity --> The Bible establishes the Trinity by declaring that there is only one God, can't argue with that! that each of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit is God, and that each of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are real persons. Hence -One God in Three Persons. Well I would say that even the best arguments for the trinity show only that the bible implies these things without ever coming out clearly and saying it. Trinitarians infer the trinity from things that they feel are inconsistant with a purely human Jesus The Persons of the triune God. How does one describe a person? A person has three qualities which set him aside from objects or forces. Firstly a person has a will, he is able to make decisions, secondly a person has emotions, he is able to love or be upset, and lastly a person is able to intelligently reason, he has an intellect. When some undefined object or item has these three abilities it is defined to be a person. Not necessarily a human being but possibly an angel, demon or even a member of the Godhead. There are three important questions which must be asked concerning the persons of the Trinity: do they have these qualities? The writer is not arguing that Jesus Christ is God, that is assumed. What he is arguing is that each aspect of God is a "person". I didn't leave in the supporting scriptures, but jumped down to his next point, where he does argue about the deity of the three "persons" The last point to labour for proof of the Trinity is that of the deity of each of the persons. Firstly, the Father: Well, yeah...who's gonna argue with that? The Son The Father is called God. There is no doubt about that, but what about Christ? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1, NASB) Wierwille would have (and did) called this a "difficult verse". Although it doesn't say "the Word" was Jeus Christ, later it says that "the Word was made flesh". I think at least this biblical writer considered Jesus to be God. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6, NASB) Not every translation renders it thus The Son is called God. For a thorough discussion of John 1:1 see below in the chapter on the New World Translation. It suffices to say at this point that the clear teaching of the Bible, as cited above, is that there is only one true God. All other gods are false. These references must therefore show that Jesus is the true God. I doesn't appear to me that there is an absence of contradiction in bible verses about the nature of Jesus. The few verses cited here don't really settle anything Lastly, the Holy Spirit: But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit... Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Acts 5:3 , 4, NASB) The Holy Spirit is thus called God. A thorough treatment of the deity of the Holy Spirit also involves a careful examination of His names, works and attributes. This is done below in the section dealing with the Holy Spirit. Nothing cited here shows that "the spirit", or "the holy spirit" has a "personhood" separate from "The Father". A trinity is assumed to make the argument. The Trinity is thus proven. It is argued, but certainly not proven There is one God and three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; each person is called God. No more proof for the Trinity is necessary. Yeah, I think there is more proof needed. The reasoning is somewhat circular.

Oh, you said SNOWjob :D-->

There are different definitions of "forced" being used among the various posters. Some of us prefer to see "force" as being literal and physical. Oldiesman, I don't think that I'm out of line to say that you are in this camp. Others of us use "forced" in a different sense: blackmailed, backed into a corner, given a "choice" between two bad alternatives. We get into these stupid arguments when we aren't using the same definitions. One us claims to have been "forced" to do something, another of us scoffs that the other was most certainly not "forced", but the two are talking about two very different things. Can we just accept that we use the word and concept of force differently? When one of the ladies says that she was "forced" to service the MOG, can those who adhere to the literal definition just shut up? I find it hard to believe that you don't know what is being referred to. On the other hand when a poster insists that we are responsible for our own actions, can we refrain from gang tackling that person, because surely we know where they are coming from? A couple of other notes: In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the "one person" among Rascal's supporters who she has met. But guess what? We don't always agree! We exchanged a few PTs a few months back after I stuck up for Oldiesman on a thread. I didn't mention any names in my last post. If the shoe fits, pull it out of your mouth. If not, maybe I'm not referring to you

dante: I know where Shenandoah is! I was there when I worked for the Omaha World-Herald; we're practically neighbors! But I'm going to Tennessee for the Weenie Roast :D-->