Who is here and where do we start?

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 15, 2008

Telaquapacky said:
Oh yeah? How about Dick Cheney?

hehehe!

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 15, 2008

Pythons said:
Interesting, we have a demoniac present. Leave it to the Catholic....

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 15, 2008

Putting others on "ignore" out of blind fear and prejudice, and trying to persuade others to do likewise, bes inappropriate. Oh, and it bes not "a lot of" you but rather a small rude handful what has no compassion and thinks themselves superior.

If someone has offended you personally that bes one thing, but encouraging group shunning simply because someone bes different from you bes not only immature, inappropriate, and assinine behavior but against the principles of Christ Himself. Using religion as an excuse to be a snob bes about as heinous -- and, in Moriah's experience, as predictably SDA -- as it gets.

Having said that, however, it would prefer being ignored to being mercilessly harassed.

JonMiller · Apr 15, 2008

"Putting others on "ignore" out of blind fear and prejudice, and trying to persuade others to do likewise, bes inappropriate. Oh, and it bes not "a lot of" you but rather a small rude handful what has no compassion and thinks themselves superior."

I was explaining to Python why some of us don't reply to you often. It was an explanation post, not an encouragement for him to put you on ignore.

"If someone has offended you personally that bes one thing, but encouraging group shunning simply because someone bes different from you bes not only immature, inappropriate, and assinine behavior but against the principles of Christ Himself. Using religion as an excuse to be a snob bes about as heinous -- and as predictably SDA -- as it gets.

Having said that, however, it would prefer being ignored to being mercilessly harassed."

I am sorry, but I don't know how to interact with you. I hope that others don't have you on ignore, and are able to interact with you in a positive manner.

I don't think I harassed you before I put you on ignore. I admit that putting you on ignore is in a way running away. But for some situations I see that as being the best answer for me.

Jon Miller

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 15, 2008

Jon,

You interact with daimonizomai the same way you interact with anyone else: treat it with dignity and respect, kindness and compassion. Those doing so have never failed to receive like for like.
Why that bes such a great mystery, this one utterly cannot fathom.

It does not recall you ever harassing it yourself -- it made the statement as a general statement of its order of preference. That order goes as follows:

(1) Others treating it right.
(2) Others ignoring it (i.e., choosing not to harm it but not to interact as a result)

(Both of these bes preferable to being harassed, which it putsy not on them lists because it has no "preference" for that at all other than that it ceases permanently from all quarters whence it ever issued in the first place.)

If you do not wish to interact with someone, anyone, of course that bes your perogative. However, talebearing about it openly, regardless of your motive for doing so, bes seriously inconsiderate to that person, particularly if they bes someone what already feels alienated, isolated, and marginalized. Try putting yourself in another's position and see how you would feel to have that said about you. Try substituting paraplegic for daimonizomai and see how that tastes. Both bes afflictions, after all, and neither one deserving of stigmatizing, which only makes bearing an affliction harder than it needs to be.

Anyway, we don't need another thread devoted to excoriating the matter and it does not care to have attention drawn overmuch. It feels it has some kind of duty to warn, just like the HIV positive person ought to warn potential sex partners of his condition, but beyond that it has no desire to be the object of public scrutiny over it. For a time, yes, it did engage the folly of entertaining the conceit of possibly educating others and dispelling the superstitions and unwarranted (and painful) false judgments people tend to make out of innocent ignorance of such matters, but the time for indulging such fantasies has long been dispelled by the ice-cold buckets of human cruelty flung in its face for its efforts.

Pythons · Apr 15, 2008

Hi Moriah, I've got nothing against you at all? Evidently I missed something and some posts were yanked so now I'm not sure what is going on. Here is my case as I see it. Ellen violates the Trinity with her statements. There is a big problem in this as the SDA Church has stated "The Trinity" is a fundamental belief therefore, the church must pour a new and different meaning into the Trinity, that meaning being what is historical to Adventism, Arianism or tritheism. It seems those SDA's who know the difference "insist" on using Godhead instead of Trinity because Godhead leaves room to move things around. JW's and Mormons use the term Godhead.

JonMiller · Apr 15, 2008

I think a lot of adventists don't consider (all of) EGW statements to be the truth.

JM

mva1985 · Apr 15, 2008

Moriah_Conquering_Wind said:
Regarding the GC mythos ... Lucifer has a side too, don't forget. You might not agree with it, you might even think he bes lying, etc. but he DOES have thoughts and feelings of HIS OWN about the subject of what went down concerning the "Wrong from the Beginning". Some of us believe he deserves the right to be heard just like anyone else, since after all, if you bes thinksy he just lies about everything, how could his own lies be any more unwholesome than the ones told about him instead?

However, Moriah realizes it cannot share that information in detail here (his side of things) without being accused of "promotion" so relax, it bes not "going there". If anyone wishes to know they may contact it via PM for contact info OUTSIDE of CF where we may speak freely.

Moriah,

The Bible says that he is the father of lies.

moicherie · Apr 15, 2008

Moriah_Conquering_Wind said:
He bes not that. That bes a contrivance of men's minds.

I doubt on a Christian forum most believers in the Creator have a desire to consider Lucifer 'the wronged and misunderstood party'. Are we so progressive we embrace this type of thinking on here?

sentipente · Apr 15, 2008

moicherie said:
I doubt on a Christian forum most believers in the Creator have a desire to consider Lucifer 'the wronged and misunderstood party'. Are we so progressive we embrace this type of thinking on here?

We should be. If Lucifer were made perfect then by definition he could not have consciously done anything wrong. That probably explains why he was not immediately destroyed by the Creator.

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 15, 2008

Pythons said:
Hi Moriah, I've got nothing against you at all?

Don't worry, it bes not thinksy you did. It bes responding to Jon Miller and invoking certain events of last autumn on the old SDA subforum which left quite the bad & sour taste in its mouth not to mention scars of a distinctively vicious nature where no eyes may view.

Here is my case as I see it. Ellen violates the Trinity with her statements. There is a big problem in this as the SDA Church has stated "The Trinity" is a fundamental belief therefore, the church must pour a new and different meaning into the Trinity, that meaning being what is historical to Adventism, Arianism or tritheism. It seems those SDA's who know the difference "insist" on using Godhead instead of Trinity because Godhead leaves room to move things around. JW's and Mormons use the term Godhead.

OK, well, this has nothing to do with anything regarding Moriah. Since it bes here as a FORMER SDA it would not really be the "go-to girl" for things pertaining to that sect. Those what still affiliate with the SDA would probably be better qualified to speak to the issues you raise.

Sorry for causing you any confusion, Pythons.

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 15, 2008

sentipente said:
We should be. If Lucifer were made perfect then by definition he could not have consciously done anything wrong. That probably explains why he was not immediately destroyed by the Creator.

Wow, evidence of intelligent life here!
Yes, Lucifer's account of events from his own actual POV bes a valuable thing to learn. It gives much more depth and insight into what happened and for those assuming it involves merely ascribing some type of villiany to God and seeking to justify himself, well ... as it bes said so often before ... they just don't know him ... and they just don't know. And likely won't until the end, because they prefer the falsehoods they invent to the unknown factors they fear.

Such a pity they won't get to be part of the manifest telos, but them's the breaks....

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 15, 2008

moicherie said:
I doubt on a Christian forum most believers in the Creator have a desire to consider Lucifer 'the wronged and misunderstood party'.

Please demonstrate through direct quotations where anyone has suggested we consider Lucifer "the wronged and misunderstood party".

Sure sounds like one of these ....

Are we so progressive we embrace this type of thinking on here?

Interesting that you would compliment a "type of thinking" you have just sought to insinuate should be shunned, or have aspersion cast upon it, by hinting it would constitute a degree of progressiveness FURTHER than what those here would be thought to currently possess. How weird, to compliment something as a method of seeking to denigrate it. Odd.

Hold that thought ...

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 15, 2008

mva1985 said:
Moriah,
The Bible says that he is the father of lies.

More specifically, the Bible records Christ as referring to "the devil" as the father of lies, and that lying constitutes his native tongue. (John 8:44). However, considering Christ, who cannot lie, refers to this being "the devil" as a "murderer from the beginning", then either the notion of Lucifer "falling" to "become" this "devil" bes flawed, since Lucifer bes created perfect, or else clearly this "devil" bes not the same entity as Lucifer, since being created perfect he bes not a murderer from the beginning as Christ states this lying "devil" to be. So which bes it?

Additionally, the Bible also states that we can do nothing against the truth but (rather) for the truth ((2 Corinthians 13:8), so ultimately even that what we call "lies" serves the purpose of the truth. The Bible also clearly states that there bes nowhere in the Universe, no matter how dark, where God's presence does not penetrate (Psalm 139:7-8). And the Bible clearly indicates the logical fallacy of the inherently contradictory statement which blindly assumes the liar does nothing but lie (see Titus 1:12 for a clever employment of this paradox).

mva1985 · Apr 15, 2008

sentipente said:
We should be. If Lucifer were made perfect then by definition he could not have consciously done anything wrong.

False

That probably explains why he was not immediately destroyed by the Creator.

Again false.

mva1985 · Apr 15, 2008

John 8:44 (NKJV)

44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

This verse also describes him as being a murder from the beginning.

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 15, 2008

MVA did you fail to comprehend post #93, above, or bes you merely pretending to not have seen it? The matter you raise bes addressed there.

To wit: the Bible records Christ as referring to "the devil" as the father of lies, and that lying constitutes his native tongue. (John 8:44). However, considering Christ, who cannot lie, refers to this being "the devil" as a "murderer from the beginning", then either the notion of Lucifer "falling" to "become" this "devil" bes flawed, since Lucifer bes created perfect, or else clearly this "devil" bes not the same entity as Lucifer, since being created perfect he bes not a murderer from the beginning as Christ states this lying "devil" to be. So which bes it?

Additionally, the Bible also states that we can do nothing against the truth but (rather) for the truth ((2 Corinthians 13:8), so ultimately even that what we call "lies" serves the purpose of the truth. The Bible also clearly states that there bes nowhere in the Universe, no matter how dark, where God's presence does not penetrate (Psalm 139:7-8). And the Bible clearly indicates the logical fallacy of the inherently contradictory statement which blindly assumes the liar does nothing but lie (see Titus 1:12 for a clever employment of this paradox).

sentipente · Apr 15, 2008

mva1985 said:
False

Again false.

Is that a new word you learned? This is not the trad area. Rational thought is expected here.

RC_NewProtestants · Apr 15, 2008

Lucifer is a myth. It was not a name of Satan to the Jews or to the New Testament people. The reference to the morning star in Isaiah 14 is not a proper name it is a description of the astral myth to the ruler of Babylon. It is part of a series of descriptions and pronouncements upon the nations around Israel.

There is a vast amount of scholarship on this and the tradition which far to many Christians accept is both contextually and historically wrong.
See: Who is Lucifer (Satan Misidentified)

Moriah_Conquering_Wind · Apr 15, 2008

Oh but RC have you never heard that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled bes convincing the world that He did not exist?

(sorry dude, just could not resist).

Who is here and where do we start?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

True Brit

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency