Jump to content

César Chávez

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About César Chávez

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

46 profile views
  1. It should be understood that science itself made it to where everything needed to be absolute. Therefore, with evolution everything needs to be specific and with creation everything is possible. Creationist didn’t make that rule, science did. Now science needs to defend it at all cost.
  2. It would depend on how clear the atmosphere was back then as compared to now. I would say, today’s world is exposed to more radiation than back then, if we don't anticipate God’s power that also includes radiation as part of his power and was not in use. All calculations are man made. It would have to be acceptable if God receded the waters by force. Pressure with radio particles could yield different carbon dating. If science could separate the pre-flood oceans, science could determine by mineral deposits what kind of catastrophic the flood event was. It would also conclude which new oceans were made by the flood. The unfortunate thing, early man was not interested in measuring earth events to use as a guide to for modern man. Now archeology is based on mathematical computations driven by man’s history. The universe is surmised by man’s computation. Science has never been clear as to a good starting point to give such calculations, a degree of absolute certainty. If we accept intelligent design, then what prompted a void to explode which is now the Big Bang theory? If by that explosion, microbes began to form, why didn’t it sustain life closer to that event? Instead, those microbes traveled billions of miles in order to stick to a tiny galaxy surpassing all others. If Astronomy has found what appears to be suns in another part of the universe, why didn’t those microbes settle there? The first thing, how did a microbe began from nothing? There has to be a starting point to intelligent design. Thus giving an acceptable outcome to evolution. All those materials are made by God. God's power that can cause a rock to melt, along with pressure could conclude a younger universe than what man claims.
  3. The way I would characterize it is by looking at the evidence. While science can only speculate on the power of God, creation can define it. This would suggest that when God ended existence with the flood as scripture indicates, Genesis 7:10 water arose from the ground as well as the heavens. What power did God use to force inward water out? Any material within that power could be deposited elsewhere. 2 Peter 3:5 If Satan was willing to give Jesus all the kingdoms of this world? There is no telling how much power Satan had to influence the need to see a different structure for man’s creation if not by evolution.
  4. Who do you think started the evolution scheme if not from a self-made God? However, not knowing the strength of the oceans current in the flood that science can't prove or disprove, deposit of materials can be logically inferred throughout the world.
  5. It has gone beyond ex-witnesses. Satan has devised a perfect scheme. Gay Rights will be the downfall of Christendom. On one hand, they will see the conflict within Christendom which all of God’s children deserve to be treated equally, rather than see how God dealt with his children in the past because of their sinful ways. Society has lost all morality at this point. Live and let live is once again at the forefront of the ticket to happiness. All we can do is be like Noah and continue to proclaim God’s righteousness and hope people will listen, amid all that Noah endured for preaching God’s words. We have to endure it. If not, the man upstairs will once again place judgement upon his creation. Do I condone their action? Of course not. My childhood best friend is gay. I have worked with gay people. I don’t accept their invites. I don’t socialize with them. What I do, once in a great while comfort a friend in distress because of ailing parents.
  6. There should be no controversy when it comes to religious beliefs. Gays can no more infringe on Christian ethics, than Christians can impose their beliefs on them. The Judge is the man upstairs. Does that mean, a good Christian should attend a gay marriage? Why not ask the best good Christian Joel Olsteen. I understand his wife said she would on CNN seen at Piers Morgan Live show. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-forsaken-a-rising-number-of-homeless-gay-teens-are-being-cast-out-by-religious-families-46746/ https://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/civil-religion/cardinal-burke-joins-voices-calling-for-parents-to-shun-gay/article_ca5f6dee-5412-11e4-93fe-0017a43b2370.html Christians will listen to their master, Christ with the books written by Paul, John and Peter while the gay community can be free to express their sexuality. The separation of church and state continues. The old saying is, I don’t tell you what to do, and you don’t tell me what to do.
  7. Probably because either they don’t understand, or they believe they don’t need to be embroiled in an everlasting debate. What has deGrasse, Dawkins, and Hawking proven? Sure, science has explained many things. However, science has yet to disprove the existence of God, no more than a creationist can prove the existence of God. In his final years, Hawkins did make a real attempt to press the question in order to understand both sides. Stephen Hawking: Brief Answers to the Big Questions 2018 “I don’t have a grudge against God. I do not want to give the impression that my work is about proving or disproving the existence of God. My work is about finding a rational framework to understand the universe around us.” P.55 Under that hypothesis, he wasn’t so much as interested in answering a question that can’t be answered by science, such as the question I outlined in an earlier post. But how, given the complexities of man and nature; why does man need to die? He wanted a better perspective about mortality. It usually comes up when people know their end is near. I have yet not to see an atheist willingness to plead with God in silence. Therefore, if science cannot answer that question, what makes anyone here think they can? What’s the purpose of engaging in the "infinite”? Once again, if this is all higher education can offer, well? For faith based individuals, God help us all, for science resilient individuals, may the 4 elements of the universe help you.
  8. The simple reason you're trying hard to evade is that David was a man of war with blood in his hands that was not worthy to build God's temple. ________________________________________ Teaching dissident or divergent views A false narrative argued in apostate sites and in the actual depiction in that false book by Carl Olof Jonsson. I knew he would come up again as is the custom for many here that can’t think for themselves. If people can’t understand between a hypothetical by which people can introduce “divergent” as a well-considered view to ultimately have a positive effect, with intellectual and good conversational meaning, that current practices can be applied to ancient or past writings and can be adopted if it remains in context, then the question on the freedom of teaching theology should be, does “anyone” have the ability to teach? Not just scripture, but history and anything else taught by higher education, high school, middle school, etc. Only here can people contradict themselves. In that sense, what of the teachings of philosophy by the ancients? What’s the alternative for this argument? 1. Atheism is wrong 2. Science: evolution, archeology, astronomy etc. are wrong 3. Bible: Creation is wrong, story book 4. Any writing is wrong because it expresses someone else’s thought 5. TTH is wrong for having to learn from another, so forth and so on. Here’s a simple hypothetical. Since atheists believe there is no God, and the universe was self-forming, by biblical account, Jesus raised a man from the dead. When has the universe raised a being from the dead? Science believes in self-forming life. That’s not the same. The argument. Well the Bible is a story book. Okay, then why didn’t anyone in Jesus’ time think to write a tale about the universe raising someone from the dead? If people were good liars back then, wouldn’t it stand to reason, if a nation of liars told a story for children to believe, then that same nation of liars would have thought of the same for children with the universe and fables. Can modern science do that? Can modern science show proof that we gave a nothingness void, indigestion in order to fart (Big Bang) that started the universe? Yet, this is the argument given for higher education. If this is the best higher education can offer as an intellectual debate, God help us all? If the Watchtower teachings are wrong, then all the ancient teachings by ancient philosophers are wrong. Come up with a better game plan. This teacher pupil nonsense is lame. If people get a headache for reading and writing, don’t become a Buddhist.
  9. Did God allow David to build His temple? hmm! Then it should be your saddening state and your amused state to understand that’s how God has allowed his earthbound representatives to operate. Read the Bible, you’ll find many examples. Don’t rely on what JWinsider and AlanF submit. Free will is a badge of honor. If you disgrace that badge, you disgrace God. If you do not repent? You are not part of that earthbound brotherhood. It’s that simple. So, yes! Not having anything to do with an unrepentant person is a biblical directive. The word shunning is used by ex-witnesses to shame and provoke in order to sway public opinion. To a witness it doesn’t mean anything. The same effect it has, when witnesses themselves use it here, to suggest it’s wrong, when they are agreeing for the wrong reason. If you understand AlanF and his atheism. That’s what an atheist would claim to be a Biblical contradiction. What has JWinsider’s argument been about the gospel of Luke and Matthew that has him so bewildered? Why else would Isaiah find it a need to pray for mercy and for whom? What is Apostle James referring to? You are trying so hard to make the GB perfect. If they are perfect, that means You, JWinsider, AlanF are perfect. What’s your excuse? You’re wrong, I’m not here to defend them no more than I want to defend your misinformation campaign. There were past GB removed. The worst one was Raymond Franz. I won’t defend him as you have defended him about his book of truth, rigged with lies.So, don't talk about dishonesty. You believe I’m trying to prevent anyone from knowing the watchtower history? Far from it, I want people to understand the Watchtower history. A history that has a false narrative by you, AlanF and any other opposer. If you’re not a supporter of the Watchtower doctrine driven by JW’s, then be a strong advocate without hypocrisy. Be in the same team as AlanF. You are already demonstrating it, free yourself and release that inner demon that has surfaced. Just don't do it in the name of JW's or the Watchtower. It doesn't matter with this silliness, if it is a small w or a capital W. Stop playing word games. Leave that to AlanF
  10. You seem to forget, there is, God does. What have you been arguing here about certain GB members? Although no one seems to talk about the worst of the bunch, Raymond Franz. What, JWinsider refuses to admit, the writing department does the “proof” reading not the GB. The role of the GB is to see whether or not there is a conflict between the articles and scripture. JWinsider also knows that. I will give you a perfect example of JWinsiders misinformation campaign that smart people easily see but a regular Joe might not. “*** w91 4/15 p. 6 When Will Lasting Peace Really Come? *** For more than 70 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been proclaiming around the world the good news that Jesus Christ began to rule in God’s Kingdom in heaven in the year 1914.” JWinsider used this as a sarcastic way of saying, yeah CC you should talk since the Watchtower itself speaks of Jehovah witnesses as being part of the Bible Students when they weren’t JWs before 1931. An intelligent person would understand this sentence: “For more than 70 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been proclaiming” to mean, Jehovah’s Witnesses from 1991 continue to proclaim that Jesus began to rule as King in heaven since 1914. 1991-1914 = 77 years Therefore, JWinsider has presented in his argument a false narrative. Something “comfortMyPeople agrees with. Then she is also mistaken, period. There is a problem when someone adamantly states their part of an organization, but wants to play in both sides of the fence. You can’t. Now, I know JWinsider is smarter than that, but his “defiance” to accept the truth which he continues to corrupt is only hurting him and those that follow his way of thinking.
  11. Exactly, If I were in the writing department, where an over expansion on terminology with dates that were used to reflect on a condition, I would not have used it. The arrogance lies with its history of witnesses not understanding the difference. Once again, you want to cherry pick to submit misinformation as I just described. Show me in the Watchtower literature where the Watchtower stated the writing department became perfect? Is your writing perfect? No! It even has grammar errors. Get over it! *** w55 3/15 p. 173 Part 6—1914 Date Verified *** The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’, best known as ‘Millennial Dawners,’ have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the hundreds of travelling evangelists who, representing this strange creed, have gone up and down the country enunciating the doctrine that ‘the Kingdom of God is at hand.’ . . . Although millions of people must have listened to these evangelists If you’re advocating to have an intelligent debate on whatever you and AlanF want to argue, have it and stop posting nonsense. It’s bad enough that AlanF queries about the “intelligent design over the existence of God” in another thread that he himself can’t argue against a living God, it doesn’t need to be that way in every post. What's the difference between JW apologists and exJW apologists?
  12. What would be the difference with its effect, with this one, here? https://time.com/5737098/trump-advances-russian-disinformation-campaign-in-fox-news-interview/ Does it really matter who is who? The Watchtower is used to daily attacks against it. That will never change. Will ex-witness efforts to oust the GB be effective? No! Satan will do that for them. Does anybody really believe 8 million letters to Russia would have an effect? No! That wasn’t the intent of the Watchtower. The intent was to show Russia’s government worldwide solidarity. This website is owned and operated. They can have whomever they want. Is it fair, no! But that doesn’t matter. Everyone just needs to get over it. AlanF, keep your publications straight. Don't mix Bible Student publications with Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The conversion was made in 1931. They officially moved to it in 1933. The control started in 1942. Officially, all JW publications began in 1950. Charles Taze Russell was part of the "International Bible Student Association" which was different from the Freedom Bible students and associated Bible students. If history is going to be placed as an argument, get it straight. The latter don't have nothing to do with laymen or other groups that are now part of the Bible Student Association. One thing that rubs me the wrong way is poor history.
  13. Once again, perhaps to some independent BS churches. The mistake that is continually being made is Russell controlled entire Bible Student association. He controlled the “tabernacle”. If Henry Grew didn’t believe in the “trinity” then Russell wouldn’t have believed in the Trinity. The Q&A he gave, mentions, even though he didn’t believe in the trinity and was unscriptural, why baptize people in the name of the father the son and the Holy Spirit. He gave his reason. A reason in accordance of not believing in the Trinity. Henry Grew (1781-1862) He not only preached against slavery, but from the Bible alone, Henry Grew determined that the doctrines of the immortal soul, hell-fire, and trinity were not Scriptural. He wrote several books against the doctrines, one of which was picked up by George Storrs who was later convinced of Grew's views regarding the state of the dead. LONDON, ENGLAND, April 5, 1882. Editor Zion's Watch Tower. I have a brother, a D.D. in the Methodist Church, and have been always told I was called to preach the blessed glad tidings, but I never have felt satisfied with orthodoxy, although I have been a member for twenty-five years. I threw out the doctrine of natural immortality five years ago, the Trinity three years ago, and with the Em. Diaglott and Bible, with other helps, have been feeling after the truth. I left the Methodist Church three years ago, and though often asked to join that and others, never felt willing, the Saul's armor of the creeds did not fit, and it seemed to me I could not fight the good fight in them. I desire to fight the fight of Faith, and lay hold of everlasting life. I have held up the thoughts given in your works of "Tabernacle" and "Food" to some of Spurgeon's people, and they were unable to gainsay me. Russell did not have the same idea as the POPE did. The papacy was still promoting the Pope to be equal to Christ or the reincarnation of Christ. There’s about 392 passages to consider. Again the impression, Russell is claiming to be “the Christ” when actually he was simply stating the obvious. Genesis 21:10 Wherefore -- In order to show that the Law covenant was not to have any rule over the spiritual sons of God. R1728:5 Cast out -- The Law covenant was cast aside when Jesus became heir of the original promise. R4319:3 And her son -- Ishmael, type of the nation of Israel. R4319:2 Tyrannical, domineering, incorrigible; at this time 13 years of age. R3952:6 Shall not be heir -- The mother's nature, rights, privileges and liberties attach to the child. E105 The nation of Israel could not inherit the promised blessings because the Law brought nothing to perfection. R4319:2 With my son -- Isaac, who represented The Christ, Head and Body. R4319:2, R4320:1 Russell was placing himself as a REPRESENTATIVE, the role of a Pastor for the Christ, which the saints are also part of that body, with Christ as the head of the congregation. Within the BSA archives, there are 500 documents and almost 6200 passages And, finally, the CHRISTIAN GLOBE (May 5, 1910) of London, states, "Since the days of Henry Ward Beecher and Dr. Talmage, no preacher has occupied so prominent a position in the United States as Pastor Russell of Brooklyn Tabernacle holds today." The full impact of Pastor Russell’s ministry can only be understood against the backdrop of church history.
  14. I didn’t know you were asking a question and I thought you were giving a personal observation. I'm not disputing the body of Christ or the kingship? I was questioning where Russell saw himself as part of that kingship. You are giving an impression, Russell thought he had that "guarantee" when no one on earth does. Christ will choose who, not the "saints" or the GB for that matter. They hope their fine work will be accepted just like the rest of us that will stay here on earth. OV313 HOW AND WHAT TO FIGHT "The Good Fight" By C. T. Russell The whole world may be divided along these lines into two classes, the one guided and controlled by earthly affairs and interests, and the other by heavenly hopes and interests. The former are what the Scriptures term the "natural man," and include many of earth's noblemen, as well as the earthly, sensual, devilish. Those controlled by the heavenly hopes, called the "spirit-begotten," "new creatures," are but a small number, and include some. The Lord's favor to Daniel in permitting him to have a high position in Babylonia and subsequently in the Medo-Persian empires is contrary to his dealings with Spiritual Israelites of the present time. He deals with us not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. Consequently the rewards we get for faithfulness to him are spiritual rewards, "much advantage everyway." The Lord expects that the heavenly hopes and prospects set before us of a participation in the heavenly Kingdom as joint-heirs with our Lord, the Messiah, will be esteemed by us as of greater value than the honors and dignity conferred upon the prophet Daniel in the past. And we, too, so esteem the matter. Let us continue to thus view things from God's standpoint, until by and by he shall say, Enough, come up higher. Who then -- In the harvest. B163 Few would be found giving to the household of faith meat in due season at his presence. R718:4 Faithful and wise servant -- Faithful to the "Master" and to "his fellow-servants" and "the household." D613 God's grace will probably come through a human channel, through the helpfulness of the fellow-members of the body of Christ, whom the Lord will make use of in serving the meat to the household of faith. R2383:4 Ever since the Church has had an existence, God has raised up some from its midst as special servants of the body, some who had special teaching ability. R1206:4 God in his own time raises up suitable servants or expounders to dispense his meat in due season. A319 Servants who are anxious, not only about the amount of service, but also that it be in exact cooperation with God. R1797:1 Merely a steward, liable to be removed at any moment should he fail to fully and duly acknowledge the Master in every particular. D613 One channel dispensing the meat in due season, though other channels or fellow-servants will be used in bringing the food to the household. D613 A special messenger to the Church at this time. R6023:3* Some one servant (animate or inanimate) whom the Lord would specially use in the present time to dispense the present truth. R1994:3 Originally applied to Pastor Russell by one who became his bitter enemy. He avoided the discussion which followed, except for references in Volume 4 and when the passage occurred in the International Sunday School Lessons. R4482:1, 4473:3, 3811:2 Thousands of readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of "that servant." His modesty precluded him from claiming this title. OV447:6*; R6011:2*, 4482:1, 2489:4* While this exhortation in general seems to apply to one particular servant, we can see the same principle would apply to each servant in turn as he would receive either food or stewardship. R3356:5 Whether you like to call it a class or individual, whatever it be. Q355:5 Let each reach his own conclusions and act accordingly. R4483:3, 1946:2; Q644:4 The whole body of Christ, faithfully carrying out their consecration vows. R291:6, 149:5* . This is what you are missing. You are projecting with a guarantee something Russell didn’t consider himself to be aside from being a faithful servant alongside the brotherhood. There were times when certain independent Bible students believed the “church” was the WS. Therefore, they all believed the members met that requirement of being saints. Was "The gospel of the kingdom" ever preached in all the world during past ages? The Scriptures declare that the immortality of human souls and eternal torment is not the gospel, Galatians 3:8. But, now, today, the gospel is being carried to every nation on earth by the one, faithful and wise servant of the Lord, Luke 12:42. The coming tour of the world means something. Yes, dear friends, soon shall the end be. Lift up your heads and rejoice when ye see these things beginning to come to pass. Why? "Because your redemption draweth nigh." Just like AlanF, you want to cherry pick. However, tell your pal, JW’s were constituted in 1931 therefore any material he submits before that, belongs to the “Freedom Bible Students” or the “Associated Bible Students”, not the original “International Bible Student Association”. Pastor Russell was part of.
  15. Sorry, I don't really respond to stupid people. You just happen to be one of them JB. I'll respond to AlanF since he, meaning JW believes he is crafty and intelligent when he isn't. They use the same AD1914 rubbish as talking points. You are missing the "hope" part of your understanding, which isn't in line with who Russell really was.

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.