Raf

Knock me over with a feather! You're Eagle?!?!?!?! I'll be dag-burned! HA! Wow.

For some reason this is on the open forum. But it explores some of the same ground as this thread.

We can't even count our votes, and now you want us to count yours?

Yo, physician! Go heal thyself.

Lindy, I was only in for about a year, and didn't have a real job. cut me some slack! I'll give more. I promise. I want God to spit in my direction.

Happy Birthday, Hills.

If I add offshoot time, I think I gave somewhere around the $5,000 mark. That's a rough estimate, and does not include books. Without offshoot time, it's more like $200-$300, again, not including books.

I was going to say it's something of a loaded question, but I didn't want to criticize the question. Understand the target audience: someone who believes changing his mind about Jesus would demean Jesus. I would have phrased the question as such: Does changing your mind about the nature of Jesus demean him in your eyes? Re: "It makes him bigger..." I think their point is that it's not hard to imagine God living without sinning. It is harder to imagine a man resisting temptation his whole life. To think that someone was able to do that is pretty big, bigger than thinking that God can resist temptation. "God, who is incapable of being tempted, resisted temptation his whole life." No duh. "Christ, who was capable of sin, resisted temptation his whole life." Big. That's my read on this stuff.

I have done nothing but joke on this thread. Forgive me if it was read any other way. Every post of mine on this thread (with the exception of this one) was intended as a joke, poking fun at myself as much as anything else. This was NOT supposed to be taken seriously. None of it.

I'm ready to meet my judge. Last I checked, his name was not Liar Liar.

How dare you criticize my board on another site? Some people.

Shameless self-promotion.

All I'm saying is, everyone who liked the way things were before Paw started fiddling around is welcome to join my site, where they will not be ridiculed for their appreciation of accurate time stamps.

Aw come on, fair is fair. What CES is trying to say is that it's not "demeaning" to be acknowledged for what you are. Rather, it improperly promotes Jesus to make him God the creator. Of course, if you believe Jesus Christ is God, then such an opinion is inherently demeaning. But CES doesn't hold that belief. Does saying Prince Charles is not the King of England demean him? Does saying Mickey Rooney is not tall demean him? Does saying Patrick Stewart is not Captain Kirk demean him? If Jesus Christ is God, then saying he's not God demeans him. If he's not, then saying he's not doesn't demean him.

Upon further reading, I will now be mostly lurking on all three sites.

We were having a discussion on the LES site about cross posting. To have a meaningful conversation about it, an example was used. I was asked privately whether this was appropriate and decided that it was: no names were used, the example cited was an illustration, and the topic is entirely appropriate. I don't recall anyone using the word "enemies" on my site. It could have. I've lost track of who has said what on which site. I know that I bristled immediately here on this site when the word "enemies" was used. I am now posting on all three sites.

I think JAL is getting a bad rap on the "victim" line. He's not talking about whether or not anyone was victimized. He was talking about "what are you going to do from this point forward?" He's not talking about the past. He's not talking about your "complicity" in being victimized. He's talking about the future, and in my opinion, what he's saying about it (as a generality, individual experiences may vary) is healthy.

I am deeply concerned with the CES teaching on the fallibility of Jesus' words. Either he spoke the words given him by God or not. If he did not, he spoke presumptuously, a HUGE OT no-no that in and of itself disqualifies him as Messiah. If he did speak the words given him by God, then he was right and our understanding is wrong. I am "generally clueless" about what Jesus meant in those verses. I've been wondering about it. But I would sooner eat my Bible than print an article saying I'm right and Jesus was wrong. And by the way, Cynic, thanks to your "generally clueless" line, my respect for you just quadrupled. :)-->

Happy birthday, George. Zeus bless you in the name of Perseus.

I don't know where to post this, but this seems as good a place as any (I've chosen two threads: mods, please forgive the cross-posting). I set up the LES message board as a place Christians can go to with the presumption that the other posters are Christian and/or expressing Christian principles. It was never intended to be an "either/or" proposition. I do not ask or expect anyone to leave Greasespot in order to come to the LES board. Individual decisions to do one or the other are just that, individual decisions. My individual decision is to be active on both boards.

I don't know where to post this, but this seems as good a place as any (I've chosen two threads: mods, please forgive the cross-posting). I set up the LES message board as a place Christians can go to with the presumption that the other posters are Christian and/or expressing Christian principles. It was never intended to be an "either/or" proposition. I do not ask or expect anyone to leave Greasespot in order to come to the LES board. Individual decisions to do one or the other are just that, individual decisions. My individual decision is to be active on both boards.

Please leave me out of this. I tried to clear up what might be a misunderstanding concerning my site. That's all.

A couple of other notes, just so that a few things are clear: 1. Mr. P is quoting comments that are addressed directly to pawtucket. One of the foundational principles of interpretation is "get 'to whom' correct." If you did not laugh at the preceding statement, I cannot help you. 2. Mr. P-Mosh is not banned from the site. No one is banned. The forum's rules specifically ask atheists and agnostics to give us our space, and I think it is kind of them to respectfully comply with that request. The fact that their compliance left them with no outlet to respond to what is said about them no doubt led Mr. P to post his comments here: appropriate since we are all members here. 3. In my itty bitty little insignificant opinion, this is not a derail (sirguess can tell me if he disagrees). The thread is addressed to Christians who want to leave GSC. Some of the people who fit that description are now registered on LES. We (I use the term broardly) are being quoted to show (accuse?) that we are not adhering to the standards expressed by sirguess in his very well-written opening post, or by the standards of our faith. I could be wrong, I could be right, but I don't think that's a derail. 4. I have a no GS-bashing rule on the LES site. However, I recognize (and I hope Paw understands) that there will be occasions of venting. In this particular case, the comments were specifically directed at Paw. I'm going to refrain from saying anything else unless asked, but I want to be perfectly clear that I support Paw, I support GSCafe, I have not urged anyone to LEAVE here, and I expect to continue posting here until I am no longer welcome or able. Paw is the sole relevant judge of whether I am welcome, though, of course, tons and tons of factors can make me unable. For example, badmouthing sea monkeys. But that would be a derail. Carry on.

This is part of what I posted over there in response to that first quote (with emphases here in bold) People can read the thread for themselves to see if they agree with what I said about the context of that statement. Also, I was posting as me, not as admin or moderator. As for the second quote, I ask that everyone allow LES to be a Christian site.

There's also Christian Biblical Counsel, founded by Vince Finnegan. And a bunch of smaller ones. Searcher, TWI is now at the stage the Jehovah's Witnesses were at in the 1920s and 30s, after Charles Russell died. At that time, the majority of people who left did so not because they no longer believed in religion, but because they disagreed with the direction taken by the organization's second president. A great number of "Ex-Watchtower Society" members at that time would very likely be participants in offshoots (many of which are still in existence).