BiggAndyy said:
Witness, you are now my new favorite dallience (sorry aspen, but you've been making far too much sense lately to keep your crown, we will still disagree but I respect the thoughtfulness you've made come across in your comments). Besides, witness is so full of hilarity I can't pass them up ;)
Thank you. I'm far too mature by now to take this as anything other than an impressive compliment said in good spirit so I appreciate that.
Arnie Manitoba said:
I could be wrong but you have all the traits and doctrines of a JW as follows ....
---Start with your name ..... "I Am" = "Jehovah" - Witness
---"do you cleanse your thoughts " is right out of JW books
---"do you receive His messangers" refers to door to door JW's
---"do you give up pork" .... is JW
---"study to show yourself approved" is a JW slogan
---Have you given up your Christmas trees, Easter bunnies, and Halloween? typical JW
--- Have you removed images from your home more JW rules
---Have you been a witness to others, with patience and longsuffering refers to door to door JW's
And last but not least you will not confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God come in the flesh.
First off, you're reading into my postings a little too much and you seem to be skipping over many important details
that clearly do not help your case. Funny that should be, seeing only what you want to see. We also have a biblical
response for those who are eyeless and earless.
First thing, Mystery Babylon. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach with unanimity that the harlot is the false religious
system, e.g. anything that is not Jehovah's Witness.
What I teach, on the other hand is very different. I teach that this Babylon is not a Church or a city, but rather
a country, namely, America. In fact, you will find my posting on this in the America is Babylon thread. JWs don't
much like dissent, you will get disfellowshipped for not falling in line, you know.
Second, if I were a Jehovahs Witness, you would find somewhere in my posts me quoting the New World translation,
which you will not. In fact, in one of my posts I hint at my skepticism towards a known Jehovah's Witness on this
site who follows along the symbolic view of Revelation that JWs hold, which you can see in their interpretation
of Revelation 18. He makes it a feature of his posts to quote from the New World translation. I prefer the good old
King James, which you will see quoted exclusively in my posts where I quote from Scriptures.
Third, the JWs remove the Johannine comma found about I John 5:7 because they prefer not to face the Trinitarian
implications of that and they can fall in line with a number of higher critics who suggest that it was not in the
autograph manuscripts. The King James includes this Comma which I interpret within my own Unitarian/Subordinationist
Trinitarian Christology. I disagree with their Christology, and I am highly against their argument that Yeshua is
really Michael.
Fourth, the JWs do not believe in the Holy Spirit, referring to it as the active force, or holy spirit, no the and
no capitals. Growing up in a mainstream Pentecostal church (Church of God-Cleveland) I was impressed with THE Holy
Spirit from a young age. A post or two of mine will reflect this.
Fifth, Jehovah's Witnesses are apolitical. They highly protest members' political involvement to the point of
expulsion for those who violate this order. What's interesting is last night you made a post in the Drugs thread
where Angelina and I had a dialogue with me arguing the typical libertarian perspective while she argued a Christian
conservative perspective. Why would I be concerned with libertarian thought if I were a JW? And why would I post a
thread about Texas and succession?
Sixth, your understanding of Trinitarianism as being salvific is unfounded. The JWs do good work in this regard by
quoting the official Catholic encyclopedias which point out that Trinitarianism is not explicitly taught within the
Bible. Not only that, but Josh McDowell, the evangelical apologist, cites in the "New Evidence that Demands a
Verdict" several mainstream Christian thinkers who agree with the Catholic encyclopedia's perspective. John Locke
makes a good argument for salvific truths and tended to think that it varied according to the person and never
touched on anything which was not explicitly taught in the Bible. God has mercy, in Locke's view, and salvificisms,
for lack of a better term lack mercy (my thoughts).
Overall, the jist of your argument is somehow through your God-given insight and great faith that you are somehow
gifted with being able to reach in through your keyboard and pull out random facts about someone you don't even
know that you are entitled to and no one else, then set yourself up as some great crusader warning the helpless
imbeciles who simply don't have the strength of perception that you do to regard me with skepticism and disdain.
Aw, but it is you who are blind and have entered into a seat of judgment not yours to occupy. Think very carefully
on what I am saying. Your view is unfounded and your accusation serves to bring dissension and sows discord
among the people. My view is one of unity, though we may not be agreed on all points, we all serve the true risen
Lord, who is come in the flesh. To Him be the glory, and honor, and power forever.
