xero

You remind me of people who say "I don't use GUI tools. If you can't do it at the command line you don't know what you're doing."

Or also...the tabs vs spaces nazis...
 

You remind me of people who say "I don't use GUI tools. If you can't do it at the command line you don't know what you're doing."

Are we not to be "imitators of God as beloved children"? I'm not a muslim who believes morality doesn't apply to God and that anything God does is by definition "good".
As to "playing the game" I'm saying that you're making accusations as if you have knowledge of the contents of another person's head. You don't, so you can't call it a "lie" unless you can prove the intent was to deceive.  The "game" is one you're playing. I just lobbed the ball back in your court and then you appear to be saying "See! You're playing the game!".
It could also be (like Jesus) that I'm answering you not for your benefit, but for anyone else who might be reading this.

Are we not to be "imitators of God as beloved children"? I'm not a muslim who believes morality doesn't apply to God and that anything God does is by definition "good".
As to "playing the game" I'm saying that you're making accusations as if you have knowledge of the contents of another person's head. You don't, so you can't call it a "lie" unless you can prove the intent was to deceive.  The "game" is one you're playing. I just lobbed the ball back in your court and then you appear to be saying "See! You're playing the game!".
It could also be (like Jesus) that I'm answering you not for your benefit, but for anyone else who might be reading this.

I've read a lot of writings from the preachers from the 19th century and they all fail when it comes to the Trinity. They argue for it, but when they get beat, the do like Spurgeon and say:

Yes, willingness to change has to be there. The question is whether the change is coming from a more accurate understanding of scripture in context (biblical archaeology, textual analysis) or the change is coming from external forces in human society.
FYI https://archive.org/details/publicdiscussion00plum
The above is the text of a debate that took place in 1842 in Ridley, PA between Frederick Plummer and William McAlla - In it you can read the use of every argument for and against the trinity which I've ever read. (Of course I feel Plummer won hands down)

Nice dissertation xero 🙂. I suppose what you are saying is that those who teach the Trinity, (I am talking about spiritual leaders, not laity) do so not because they can "prove" it is true, but because it is "tradition", because that is what the church was founded on and decided upon in the 4th century. It is true, if you've read any of the secular books on the inception of the trinity doctrine you realize what a political scam it was. Of course, most of these books are written by authors who are against the doctrine. There are many books though written by those who defend the trinity and present arguments for it. These theologians surely must believe with all their heart that the trinity is true. After all, they present "proof”. What then? I think the criterion for ascertaining the genuineness of such a person is; how would they react when presented with simple Biblical proof against the Trinity doctrine? Just for the sake of example, if the Pope was presented with simple, and logical Biblical proof, would he still hold on to his belief tooth and nail? That perhaps would be the deciding factor whether I should join his religion, whether this religion was the right one. That is what I meant when I said that the true religion should be able to change their erroneous teachings when finding out that they were indeed in error. So in this case, the Pope would go ahead and declare the some 1600 year held doctrine null and void and introduce Biblical truth. Obviously, for something like this to happen is unrealistic, that is why it is a strictly hypothetical example just to illustrate a point.. (what is possible of course is for the Pope to resign, but this would not change Catholicism).
So I still think that the measuring stick to finding the true religion is its willingness to change its teachings, and not whether it is teaching the truth per se. As Witness* brought out, we have not always taught the truth. Not only that, but we are still learning. The Bible itself says the light will keep getting brighter, until full daylight. Perhaps full daylight will not be achieved till the new system? You may have noticed on this forum discussions regarding 1914. There are many discrepancies regarding this “doctrine” if one cares to look. Your average brother or sister will be teaching this from how it is presented by the GB, without questioning it, or without looking at evidence against it.   

(*Witness is no longer a JW herself, so naturally most of what she says is in direct and bitter opposition to what she used to believe to be the Truth). 

True that there are people who go along w/things. I see this more in the "raised-in-the-truthers" where the "make the truth your own" is something they have yet to do. And true also that tyrannical elements exist in the organization as there were too in the 1st century. People said things, and "leaders" said and believed thing which weren't true.
"2  However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ+ and our being gathered together to him,+ we ask you 2  not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement*+ or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah*+ is here." 2 Thes. 2:1-2
Peter had to get straightened out by Paul. Priscilla and Aqulla had to strighten out Apollos. There were people pushing circumcision. There was a fascination with angelology. There was the "sect of Nicolaus". People came and went. I'm sure there were people who thought certain the end was in sight then and preached to that effect.
People get things wrong a lot. Especially where God is concerned. Some have problems admitting being wrong, and maybe today you have some overly concerned w/lawsuits (guess what, there were lawsuits in the 1st century too).
At any given moment you have people w/a certain spirit about them. Is it their desire to tell the truth, or to trick you? People fool themselves 1st before they fool others. It happens all the time.
That's why you have to keep testing the inspired utterances, because there will be utterances and you have to keep checking to see if you are really in the faith.
Me? I think I'm doing good sometimes and then ten minutes go by and I'm like pig-pen from the Charlie Brown cartoons. I spiritually floss one tooth and the others get loose. It never ends.
I think of this written by Paul and feel the same way....
"21  I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me.+ 22  I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within,+ 23  but I see in my body* another law warring against the law of my mind+ and leading me captive to sin’s law+ that is in my body.* 24  Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? 25  Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law.+" - Ro. 7:21-25
So to me w/organizations no matter what, you have yourself either alone and on your knees praying alone or you associate w/organizations who mostly appear to be doing their best.
Maybe some are being idolatrous w/organizations and maybe some are uncomfortable w/the ambiguity which comes from a living, breathing and imperfect faith and so they tighten up - well guess what? It's never stopped being that way and won't until Jesus intervenes in this system in a way that's undeniable to the entire planet.
 

The message that Jonah gave the people, "in the strictest sense", was not a lie.  They heard the message that originated with God, and they repented.  Where is the lie?  
If you were a prosecutor, the fact that this didn't happen was a "lie".
You see how people can play this game?
Reminds me of a scene from the Pink Panther.
 

A - I would say expecially w/regard to the trinity, that you have to have (to get all epistemological about it in the Gettier sense), to have knowledge of something, to have true, justified belief (to have knowldege, it has to be true, you have to believe it and you have to have good justification for said belief).
To believe something is to be able to provide a rational belief, an account of your belief. If you say "I believe in the trinity", that's not proof of your belief. That's a statement. You have to provide justification.
If you say "I believe in the trinity because the Pope says it's true, or because my preacher says it's true, or because I don't want to be called names." We all know those are not valid reasons, any more than if a person were to say "The governing body says it's true, therefore it's true and those are my reasons". These may be reasonable in the sense of these "reasons" being correlated with the proposed belief, but to believe something you have to internalize the thing in which you ostensibly believe.
I see a cat. I believe I saw a cat. I touched the cat. I form a "catness" analogy in my head as to when something has passed into the zone of catness and when it's no longer a cat. My belief has boundary conditions, and is potentially falsifiable. But at the moment I say "I'm holding a soft, purring kitten" and you see it, and acknowledge it, then we have some grounds for saying we believe me when I say "I'm holding a soft, purring kitten".
The justifications are my sense data and your agreement w/my sense data.
What is it that this person is even talking about, when he says "I believe the trinity to be true."?
The word and it's use is so ambiguous as to require a lot of qualification. Most people are satisfied, like the reasoning book says when you say "I've accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is God's power." (paraphrased) People will say "Mighty fine!, Mighty fine!". You could even preach a sermon in their church - take an outline like "God's View of Sex and Marriage" and give it in any nondenominational church and you'd get no argument.
So do they believe the trinity? I don't think they even have a clear idea as to what they're talking about. You can't teach what you can't clearly define any more than you can believe it. It reminds me of an 8 hour discussion I had w/a pentecostal minister one long Saturday - like playing whackamole w/scriptures. I ended up eating dinner w/his family - nice people and all, but at the end he just had a Mona Lisa smile on his face like some carnival worker who took all my money so I could finally get a stuffed pony.

A - I would say expecially w/regard to the trinity, that you have to have (to get all epistemological about it in the Gettier sense), to have knowledge of something, to have true, justified belief (to have knowldege, it has to be true, you have to believe it and you have to have good justification for said belief).
To believe something is to be able to provide a rational belief, an account of your belief. If you say "I believe in the trinity", that's not proof of your belief. That's a statement. You have to provide justification.
If you say "I believe in the trinity because the Pope says it's true, or because my preacher says it's true, or because I don't want to be called names." We all know those are not valid reasons, any more than if a person were to say "The governing body says it's true, therefore it's true and those are my reasons". These may be reasonable in the sense of these "reasons" being correlated with the proposed belief, but to believe something you have to internalize the thing in which you ostensibly believe.
I see a cat. I believe I saw a cat. I touched the cat. I form a "catness" analogy in my head as to when something has passed into the zone of catness and when it's no longer a cat. My belief has boundary conditions, and is potentially falsifiable. But at the moment I say "I'm holding a soft, purring kitten" and you see it, and acknowledge it, then we have some grounds for saying we believe me when I say "I'm holding a soft, purring kitten".
The justifications are my sense data and your agreement w/my sense data.
What is it that this person is even talking about, when he says "I believe the trinity to be true."?
The word and it's use is so ambiguous as to require a lot of qualification. Most people are satisfied, like the reasoning book says when you say "I've accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is God's power." (paraphrased) People will say "Mighty fine!, Mighty fine!". You could even preach a sermon in their church - take an outline like "God's View of Sex and Marriage" and give it in any nondenominational church and you'd get no argument.
So do they believe the trinity? I don't think they even have a clear idea as to what they're talking about. You can't teach what you can't clearly define any more than you can believe it. It reminds me of an 8 hour discussion I had w/a pentecostal minister one long Saturday - like playing whackamole w/scriptures. I ended up eating dinner w/his family - nice people and all, but at the end he just had a Mona Lisa smile on his face like some carnival worker who took all my money so I could finally get a stuffed pony.

True that there are people who go along w/things. I see this more in the "raised-in-the-truthers" where the "make the truth your own" is something they have yet to do. And true also that tyrannical elements exist in the organization as there were too in the 1st century. People said things, and "leaders" said and believed thing which weren't true.
"2  However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ+ and our being gathered together to him,+ we ask you 2  not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement*+ or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah*+ is here." 2 Thes. 2:1-2
Peter had to get straightened out by Paul. Priscilla and Aqulla had to strighten out Apollos. There were people pushing circumcision. There was a fascination with angelology. There was the "sect of Nicolaus". People came and went. I'm sure there were people who thought certain the end was in sight then and preached to that effect.
People get things wrong a lot. Especially where God is concerned. Some have problems admitting being wrong, and maybe today you have some overly concerned w/lawsuits (guess what, there were lawsuits in the 1st century too).
At any given moment you have people w/a certain spirit about them. Is it their desire to tell the truth, or to trick you? People fool themselves 1st before they fool others. It happens all the time.
That's why you have to keep testing the inspired utterances, because there will be utterances and you have to keep checking to see if you are really in the faith.
Me? I think I'm doing good sometimes and then ten minutes go by and I'm like pig-pen from the Charlie Brown cartoons. I spiritually floss one tooth and the others get loose. It never ends.
I think of this written by Paul and feel the same way....
"21  I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me.+ 22  I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within,+ 23  but I see in my body* another law warring against the law of my mind+ and leading me captive to sin’s law+ that is in my body.* 24  Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? 25  Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law.+" - Ro. 7:21-25
So to me w/organizations no matter what, you have yourself either alone and on your knees praying alone or you associate w/organizations who mostly appear to be doing their best.
Maybe some are being idolatrous w/organizations and maybe some are uncomfortable w/the ambiguity which comes from a living, breathing and imperfect faith and so they tighten up - well guess what? It's never stopped being that way and won't until Jesus intervenes in this system in a way that's undeniable to the entire planet.
 

Well I don't get into name calling, but I do think there are hierarchies of interests and hierarchies of concerns. But, to play the side which is presented we could suggest the same of many in the Bible. Take Jonah. Did Jonah preach a lie?
3  Then the word of Jehovah came to Joʹnah a second time, saying:a 2  “Get up, go to Ninʹe·vehb the great city, and proclaim to her the message that I tell you.” 3  So Joʹnah got up and went to Ninʹe·vehc in obedience to the word of Jehovah.d Now Ninʹe·veh was a very large city*—a walking distance of three days. 4  Then Joʹnah entered the city, and walking a day’s journey, he was proclaiming: “In just 40 days more, Ninʹe·veh will be overthrown.” - Jonah 3:1-4
Now granted he got a direct message as the scripture says to tell Nineveh what would, in the strictest sense would be - a lie.
(But...they repent (now there was no conditional "Nineveh will overthrown in 40 days UNLESS you repent))
He even as much as said so later that he knew it was a 'lie'.
4  But this was highly displeasing to Joʹnah, and he became hot with anger. 2  So he prayed to Jehovah: “Ah, now, Jehovah, was this not my concern when I was in my own land? That is why I tried to flee to Tarʹshisha in the first place; for I knew that you are a compassionate* and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love,b one who feels grieved over calamity.
So I think that you have a point in the strictest sense, but even in a courtroom the intent, the mens rea is taken into account.
Did the ones saying such things in 1907 not believe them to be true? If they did was it a lie? Is simply teaching something which one believes to be true (but isn't) equivalent in all ways to "teaching lies"?
I don't see it that way.
 

I mean, the food is so good! I just wish those women would get out of my way so I could read the menu in peace.

" All things are clean to clean people;+ but to those who are defiled and faithless, nothing is clean, for both their minds and their consciences are defiled"- Titus 1:15

This reminds me of a skit I used to do about Jezebel.
Jezebel: ”I’m looking for some good-for-nothing men.”
Good-for-nothing man: “Um—that would be me.”

" All things are clean to clean people;+ but to those who are defiled and faithless, nothing is clean, for both their minds and their consciences are defiled"- Titus 1:15

" All things are clean to clean people;+ but to those who are defiled and faithless, nothing is clean, for both their minds and their consciences are defiled"- Titus 1:15

Well I don't get into name calling, but I do think there are hierarchies of interests and hierarchies of concerns. But, to play the side which is presented we could suggest the same of many in the Bible. Take Jonah. Did Jonah preach a lie?
3  Then the word of Jehovah came to Joʹnah a second time, saying:a 2  “Get up, go to Ninʹe·vehb the great city, and proclaim to her the message that I tell you.” 3  So Joʹnah got up and went to Ninʹe·vehc in obedience to the word of Jehovah.d Now Ninʹe·veh was a very large city*—a walking distance of three days. 4  Then Joʹnah entered the city, and walking a day’s journey, he was proclaiming: “In just 40 days more, Ninʹe·veh will be overthrown.” - Jonah 3:1-4
Now granted he got a direct message as the scripture says to tell Nineveh what would, in the strictest sense would be - a lie.
(But...they repent (now there was no conditional "Nineveh will overthrown in 40 days UNLESS you repent))
He even as much as said so later that he knew it was a 'lie'.
4  But this was highly displeasing to Joʹnah, and he became hot with anger. 2  So he prayed to Jehovah: “Ah, now, Jehovah, was this not my concern when I was in my own land? That is why I tried to flee to Tarʹshisha in the first place; for I knew that you are a compassionate* and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love,b one who feels grieved over calamity.
So I think that you have a point in the strictest sense, but even in a courtroom the intent, the mens rea is taken into account.
Did the ones saying such things in 1907 not believe them to be true? If they did was it a lie? Is simply teaching something which one believes to be true (but isn't) equivalent in all ways to "teaching lies"?
I don't see it that way.
 

I watched the first two - loved it.  This is really the crazy world we are living in. They must have been trained by the wackedemia.