In the Beginning There Was ()

a reply to: Raggedyman

Not sure your expectations of christianity, what you once believed but mine are different

I never really had faith in eternal life. I was doing it to help people. I didn't question my beliefs until the church was ready to split. A number wanted to follow me as a cult leader.

Thank God I was able to avoid that. I was still fit enough to run fast.

a reply to: pthena

Pretty much accept Ana baptist theology and there non credal view, though.
Eternal life isn’t part of the apostles creed it’s hardly relevant to me one way or the other

Many I have introduced to my theology based on what the Ana Baptist’s teach listen but I always point to Jesus, wouldn’t want anyone following me, they have their own path
And truthfully, I can’t force them to learn, just gently guide in love

I was once a calvinist so that should indicate what I don’t know

a reply to: Raggedyman

I once wrote about Roger Williams, the true American Father of religious liberty. Unfortunately, I may have posted it on someone else's thread. Can't find it now. It had pictures and everything.

Williams considered it "forced worship" if the state attempted to promote any particular religious idea or practice, and he declared, "Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils."[29] He considered Constantine the Great to be a worse enemy to Christianity than Nero because the subsequent state involvement in religious matters corrupted Christianity and led to the death of the Christian church. He described the attempt of the state to pass laws concerning an individual's religious beliefs as "rape of the soul" and spoke of the "oceans of blood" shed as a result of trying to command conformity.[30] The moral principles in the Scriptures ought to inform the civil magistrates, he believed, but he observed that well-ordered, just, and civil governments existed even where Christianity was not present. Thus, all governments had to maintain civil order and justice, but Williams decided that none had a warrant to promote or repress any religious views. Most of his contemporaries criticized his ideas as a prescription for chaos and anarchy, and the vast majority believed that each nation must have its national church and could require that dissenters conform.
Roger_Williams

He's remembered in some Baptist Churches in America, but forgotten by the right wingers who would just as soon mandate evangelicalism as the official religion of the U.S.

He shifted theologically a lot but never compromised on liberty. Great man!

a reply to: pthena

Never heard of him, no doubt a very valid christian position and one I would agree with though
Sounds very anabaptist of him, think the UK had the Magna Carta doing the same thing a few hundred years earlier.
Just suggesting that church and state has been an issue for many going back to Constantine.
Jesus Himself never got involved in politics, none of the apostles.

Many anabaptists had adopted those policies in their communities in Europe and were persecuted relentlessly by both Catholics and Protestants. People like control.

a reply to: Raggedyman

People like control.

Matthew 8:

…8The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have You come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell one to go, and he goes; and another to come, and he comes. I tell my servant to do something, and he does it.” 10When Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those following Him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.…

Now I will refer you back to whereislogic's post. Overcome your prejudice if you are able to.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: pthena

Prefer not to look at WIL’s posts at any time.
Anyone who supports an organisation that protects pedophiles and I will happily bring attention to the evil they support.

Nothing changes, people like control. Centurion or not, people like control.
We live under a secular system that demands accountability to secular authorities, JW,org want to control and deny secular law and justice

God is love, justice is love, justice must be metered out, it is justice. You want to deny justice, I doubt it, maybe just what you are facing?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Prefer not to look at WIL’s posts at any time.

There's an old saying that I first heard from an Australian lay preacher:
"The truth is the truth, even if it comes from the mouth of an ass."

Numbers 22 New International Version

21Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the Moabite officials. 22But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the Lord stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, it turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat it to get it back on the road.

24Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path through the vineyards, with walls on both sides. 25When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam’s foot against it. So he beat the donkey again.

26Then the angel of the Lord moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. 27When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat it with his staff. 28Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

29Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

30The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

“No,” he said.

31Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.

32The angel of the Lord asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me. a 33The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared it.”

34Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, “I have sinned. I did not realize you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back.”

a reply to: Raggedyman

maybe just what you are facing?

Have you considered that I am facing you?

I will not teach Christianity to a Christian.
That is a road that I will not go down again.

I yield.
The road is yours.

a reply to: pthena

Pthena, the truth is very subjective, to the JW he has the truth, me, I am never sure what is truth is, have most answers I need or can find the answers, but my faith is in Jesus not an organisation, church or religion.

You state you were a Christian and once believed Jesus did rise, now not so much, I understand that seems logical, what would be the point of christianity if Jesus remained dead, I would be a fool, be a deserved laughing stock, be contemptible.

Paul made those comments and you even noted them about the pointlessness of faith in Christ if he remained in the ground, 1 Corinthians 15

Walk the road, whatever road that is, seems we can only go in one direction anyway, old age. Think it’s best we walk in peace, talk in peace and allow different subjects and opinions to be tolerated and voiced, learn, ponder and broaden our wisdom

a reply to: Raggedyman

Okay, so I yielded the road to you.

Now I'll step off the shoulder and go into the ditch.

I quoted one little thing, having to do with this life.
You said it was out of context and filled in the Christian part yourself.

Am I cool in the ditch now?
Or must I run for the field?

a reply to: pthena

Mate, if you can’t keep your footing, if you fall in the ditch, if you are afraid and flee from a few words then we probably shouldn’t be conversing
Where you stand is your choice, the road is not mine and I am happy to walk with company or not.

You can quote what you like when you like, I will consider and understand it as to my context not one offered by another unless I find it reasonable. Recently I sat in a service where the minister failed in context so poorly I ended up having to have words. In fact I think the sermon was stolen off a tv evangelist to be honest it was so bad
I won’t listen and agree, I won’t pretend if I think you have missed the mark, I would expect no less from others. Happy to disagree and leave it where it stands

As I have said, I have a solid theology based on Anabaptism, good teaching that answers my questions according to my spirit. It’s not for everyone and I know that.

Walk where you want, road, ditch or field, you have a question I will answer as honestly as I can, if my answer offends my apologies but would you prefer I lie or didn’t

In my opinion, Paul was saying “IF” Christ’s resurrection was questionable then christians are to be pitied

The Resurrection of the Dead

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.




I understood you were suggesting Paul was saying Christians are just to be pitied when you offered just one verse out of context, much like I have seen so many others do on ats

a reply to: pthena

This was found graffitied on a wall:

Where was it found graffitied on a wall?
Do you have any links?
Or did you make it up?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: pthena

This was found graffitied on a wall:

Where was it found graffitied on a wall?
Do you have any links?
Or did you make it up?

Perhaps 'everything', is made-up ?


Have you pondered '()' ?

( [ ( [ ( Pssst ! Hey Pthena ! Are we getting better at managing our fear of punctuation ? ) ] ) ] )

a reply to: Nothin
I have pondered and what popped up was:
() = absence.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Where was it found graffitied on a wall?
Do you have any links?
Or did you make it up?

I explained it in another thread,
and then I gave the link to that
in yet another thread.

I forgot to make notes,
If I tried hard enough
I could probably track it down.

a reply to: pthena
So...did you make it up....did you write the graffiti on the wall?
Was there a wall?

a reply to: Nothin

( [ ( [ ( Pssst ! Hey Pthena ! Are we getting better at managing our fear of punctuation ? ) ] ) ] )

I thought that it was suggested(hinted) as superstition rather than mere fear.
Superstition comes from an excess of piety.
And piety is a religious virtue.

And I like religion
and don't want to loose it
( the good parts I mean).
=============================
So some people( celebrities in mythology ) came
for a social gathering at my apartment one day
( I was tempted to write in may (just to make it rhyme)
but was afraid that that would be fabrication (of a total sort
(if you if you get the drift )) then didn't ).

To cut a long story short there was much pointing
( that's what some people like to call it ( more nodding though
( the kind that indicates "look over there" ))) to,
An outside observer ( of course there were none ( except maybe () on
the couch ( that the others pretended not to see ( or maybe not ?
( the pretending I mean )))) might think there
was passing of the buck going on.

So eventually the final nod ( which I took to indicate finality ( not complete
finality ( but for the time being ))) was from a certain individual
( you would have to read The Gospel of Chiron for a clue as to who )
right back to me.

With that in mind and considering that those guests
may pop back in to resume the aforementioned social
gathering, I think it prudent to retain a bit of piety
( not excessive mind you, for excess leads to
undue superstition ).

That should be a fairly clear answer.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

So...did you make it up....did you write the graffiti on the wall?
Was there a wall?

If you have managed to find the explanation,
then you may have seen the word sequestered used;
that is if I'm remembering it properly.

Sequestered suggests a barrier of some sort.
Now we may call that barrier a wall if we so choose.
So let's just go ahead and do that.
Yes, of course there was a wall.

As for who exactly wrote the graffiti;
I know myself to be more than that.

Just imagine if one day a Wikipedia page appears:

Pthena, the presumed author of the graffiti (citation needed).

I would feel like ...
well I would ...

Let's just say that it would be a let down.

a reply to: Nothin

I just realized that I coulda/shoulda/woulda posted this
song as an answer.

Nowhere leads to knowhere
then a call back to home.

a reply to: pthena

So I listened to the song again.

Manuela then said, "So tell me of home."

Since she already knows, I'll just write a little something here.

When I was taking an English class, the term paper assignment was to read a book, find a significant theme in the book, and present that theme in such a way as to tie the whole story together.

It turns out that I had just purchased a copy of Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows for my own reading pleasure. It was in the College book store. And I said to myself "I've seen the movie but I've never read the book." So I bought the book but hadn't read it yet.

Being one of those stereotypical poor college students of that era; once I had gotten the assignment for the term paper, there was the dilemma of money. For a serious deep analysis of literature it is quite necessary to underline sentences and make marginal notes and cross references. The library would have some harsh questions to ask me if I happened to return one of their books after such additions were made.

I stood looking at the children's book thinking, "This is a serious assignment, would the professor mark me down as a non-serious student if I did the theme based on a children's book?"

Now mind you, these thoughts were before I had read the book. After reading the book of course such thoughts are obviously quite ludicrous. There would be no question that the book was completely appropriate for such a serious endeavor.

One of the other stereotypical concerns of the era was time management. There are other classes requiring time; other required reading, studying, work, a little bit of sleep from time to time. So the decision was quite a heavy one. If I spent time reading a book which was inappropriate, then that would be time unrecoverable.

Time ( unrecoverable time; precious unrecoverable time ) was ticking by, as I pondered. I had to make a quick decision. So braving the extreme risk, I took that leap, sat down and opened that cover.

The theme became clear: Home.

After my first total immersion through the book, I then took up my pencil and started back through the book again, noting just when in the midst of all these exciting adventures, that mole first felt the pull within his heart, to return home, and how each and every adventure contained a kernel, be it ever so small, which contributed to the undeniable, the inexorable, ultimate decision, to return home.

It would be an act of braggadocio if I were to reveal the professor's reaction to the completed assignment, so I best not. In fact, I shouldn't even hint at it.