snowychap

To you, it sounds patronizing. That is not the attitude/spirit in which I said it. You will just have to take my word for it.

I am afraid that is not true and you are not doing yourself or your 'word' justice by pretending otherwise.

Self-interested human living has been overcome.

I'm sorry but I think your group is a great example of self-interested living.

It's like having to pronounce a death sentence on the entire population of the earth and being responsible for it. The weight of this kind of message is not without its personal excruciations in the carrying out of our commission.

Many of your group have already said and implied that they are no longer of this world and as such bear no responsibility for what happens in or to it.

What the trumpet is actually saying is that everyone is set free. Set free from human domination and control, no matter how benevolent a man might try to make it appear.

And it is also saying that everyone is now free to be subjugated under other wordly domination and control, now matter how benevolent a (son of) god might try to make it appear.

It is the end of the world but not as Hollywood and falsehood have portrayed it.

Sorry, did I miss the feature presentation?

Hollywood is in the US. Channel4 is in the UK.

Everyone who reads what we are saying judges themselves by what is already in their heart. It's just the way life works. One can only view another through the glasses of their own context of life.

Not this again.

Whenever someone criticises anyone from your group, you believe that it is they who are at fault and not you.

Sorry, I forgot that the perfect ones cannot err.

This is the time for revealing all things. Everyone reveals who they are by how they respond to God's message. The Son of God came down from heaven for this purpose. It is the time when everyone will bow the knee.

I'm not going to be bending the knee or bowing to anyone which rather falsifies your proclamation.

Has your counsel and instruction as a parent ever been misunderstood or misperceived .......

If a parent had spoken to me in this kind of made up English, it would have naturally lessened the effect of any message that he/she were trying to get across.

I do not mean to misunderestimate you. :winkold:

.. chose an arabic name for me? Like, what's the big deal? I'm not stuck in any kind of ethnic box ..

It was nothing to do with ethnicity rather to do with religious association.

And, as to the "elite christian group", if you are referring to strong city, I can say that, yes, we were chosen to play a specific part in the celestial drama but not because we are "elite". Father chose us because we were the worst off. We needed the most help in coming to the reality of the Christ Life. We were chosen, yes, but not for the reason you imply.

I did not imply that you were chosen for any reason. I certainly did not imply that you were chosen because you were elite; it is rather that you viewed yourselves as an elite group because you thought you had been chosen.

As for the number of times a new name will be given, how could I possibly know that?

Should it not say it in your book? That is where you referred when originally explaining the significance of the 'renaming'.

The new name that Father gives is not like those earth names but I thought the illustration might help you understand.

Please can you (and others in your group) refrain from this kind of patronizing approach to your responses (at least to me).

We may disagree, discuss,debate and question but unless someone actually says that they do not understand then don't come out with the schoolteacher approach.

Do you not see that some might see a little irony in one of the few (48 or so) 'true' christians being given a new name which is a muslim name.

To Clarry, this is not a jibe. It is a genuine question.

I'm still not sure what your problem or your question is. God gave me a new name and I received it.

The question was about the muslim origin and its subsequent use in the context of 'the elite christian group' as per the first line quoted above.

I have no problem with the name; it is a lovely name.

Also, are we going to be renamed over and over according to the bible? Or just once?

It sounds like we're due to receive ONE new name. Not be renamed over and over depending upon the blowing of the wind.

I may not be a 'bible man' but perhaps if you raised your head out of the thing you might be able to read what other people say, too.

Do you not see that some might see a little irony in one of the few (48 or so) 'true' christians being given a new name which is a muslim name.

To Clarry, this is not a jibe. It is a genuine question.

Your post was a tangential response to my question, at best

I directed my answer to the root of the issue. Perhaps this is what you did not understand.

No, you did not.

You used the opportunity of responding to a question asked to trot out your mantra about the judgement of the character of god, the marriage of the lamb, &c. and not as an opportunity to address the question(s) and the particular(s) at hand.

Have you thought about a career in politics?

A glance or a look toward someone ... is the fruit of your agreement with the thought.

Is there not the possibility that the thought has simply asked the question, and your glance or look is simply an attempt to answer- and the answer could be 'no'?

(this is getting very philosophical)

I think that beth's approach to this question does not allow for people to be multi-dimensional in the same way that BOF's does.

Beth, I am afraid that if something is a thought in your head it is yours however fleeting it may be.

You accept that human beings have free will and from that I infer that you view this free will as an integral part of our humanity. Can you not see that at any time from the birth of the idea up until the actuality of the action which will transform that idea in to deed then a human being can exercise their free will in stopping this process.

If thought is as bad as deed then there is no point in free will and no point in humanity except as an exercise in public backslapping for god.

But that is where you are, isn't it?

You have no need for the kind of free will necessary to make value decisions about things and to make moral judgements. You have 'let god in', have given up all responsibility for morality to his judgement and because of this believe that nothing that comes from you can be bad (even if it appears to be so to others) because it is god's will.

Do you think that anything is bad?

If so, where do you think its origin is?

How can you judge extraneous events or thoughts to be good or bad when you have no concept of good and bad in yourself?

Is it : we are perfectly good because we are part of god ergo you are all perfectly bad because you are not?

It's a shame a few idiots ruined what was a interesting read of a thread.

Oh well, should be used to it by now.

I am sorry if it is improper to ask this but what are you going on about?

First I want to say that my last post was in response to Snowy's thoughts about why we would bother "defending" ourselves. I wrote it in the "Quick Response" box right under his post, thinking it was self explanatory that it was in response to his post. I'm not real familiar with posting on forums.

That's what I thought and that is why I posted the following:

To whom is this post addressed or is it just a soliloquy?

It certainly can't be my last post as it has sod all to do with what I was querying.

Your post was a tangential response to my question, at best.

Btw,

is Hanifa not an odd choice of name for a christian?

Hanifa means true believer. Is that odd?

It seemed odd that a Christian changing their name to represent who they truly are would choose an arabic and ostensibly muslim name.

Btw,

is Hanifa not an odd choice of name for a christian?

To whom is this post addressed ....

Trinity_Tom and beth have been communicating in between all the foolishness. The reply to which you refer is her response to a post by him two pages back.

Perhaps if her post is a response to a specific individual she could indicate that in future.

How you can distinguish your (collective not specific to you) foolishness and the other foolishness is remarkable.

It actually is not about defending ourselves or anything that has been done, at all. It is not about us at all. It is about vindicating the character of God, and the judgment of the world.

The character of God has been revealed in His Son, and all are judged by the judgment they place upon him. It has always been this way. God's Son in human flesh was seen as a revolutionary when he came the first time, and only a few true hearts saw Who He was, and loved Him. But centuries have passed, and "Jesus" has become a religious icon, that many now say they "believe" in, when they don't really know Him. So, the Son has come a second time, and is seen just as much as a revolutionary, a nut or a con man by the people of the present day. Again, a few true hearts see Who He is, and love Him.

Only this time, He has come for His Bride, to take her away with Him from this dark, ruined world. His Spirit is even now departing, and the earth is left in the fires of its own self imposed destruction. He would have taken them all, for He sees all humanity as His beloved Bride, but they would not have Him.

To whom is this post addressed or is it just a soliloquy?

It certainly can't be my last post as it has sod all to do with what I was querying.

Yes, I got that you were not accusing or making a judgment, and I appreciate that. I was simply offering that the testimonies are available if anyone is interested in hearing the charges against us refuted by those involved.

I am wondering about one thing about Michael.

Edit: I am wondering about many things about Michael but one is the following:

There are two possibilities:

He has done something which we, outside your group, would regard as wrong and as such has 'offended' us and thus partly achieved his prophetical purpose as a 'sword'. In which case, job done. Why would you find it necessary to refute these charges as that would be counter productive?

If he is not of this world and not to be judged by its morality then what would it gain you to defend something which need not (by your proclamation) be defended?

or

He hasn't done anything which we would view as wrong: in which case it's all a bit of a storm in a teacup and there is no necessity for anyone to refute erroneous charges. That would, though, mean that he were not doing his job of offending the outside world (except by way of deception and falsehood).

Apologies snowy, missed this

Also, what are the stats on the ratio of deaths to users and whether the deaths are accidental?

DYOR - how the heck would I know - do you think I hang around ER

Gringo, no worries about missing it.

As far as your recreational activities go, I couldn't comment.

Though you could be a lawyer. :winkold:

by Elisha Cuthbert in particular, ta

Not sure you get to put in requests.

I am sorry for half-ruining this thread by being silly, btw. Though, in fairness, I think it was really getting rather silly anyway.

I tried living without God. I've spent my entire twenty years on this planet haven't heard a word from him, and don't want to either. I simply don't think such a thing as God exists, and I don't need a god to live a decent, moral life either. Because guess what, in those twenty years without god I never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my ass off, and went about my day (thanks, Bill).

Where does that leave me, people of Strong City?

F***ed, I think. Michelsen.

Just like the murdering, robbing, raping, beating, job/car/house/wife/kids-losing unbelievers.

It is not about who you are, what you do or how decent you are it is about whether you believe ONE thing. And if you don't then you're not getting on the Ark even if you are twice or ten times the person that any of those with a ticket are.

It's a theocracy not a meritocracy! :winkold:

"Inner peace" is a Person.

Yep. Ex-Blackburn and West Ham now at Fulham. :winkold:

Gee, thanks!

I'm assuming that DYOR means do your own research?

Also, what are the stats on the ratio of deaths to users and whether the deaths are accidental?

Annual number of deaths from aspirin (or aspirin like drugs) in the US :7,600

Number of ecstasy related deaths in the UK: 46

Which is more deadly?

Can we compare eggs with eggs, please?

You ask this from the context of your own humanity.

You answer this from the context of your own lack of humanity.

God only asks that we let Him be God.

That is awfully gracious of him. Asking would suggest that I could prevent him from being god which is slightly bizarre and also illogical for if that is the truth, then I cannot prevent 'the truth'.

Since "God is love", all He does is in and for love's sake.

If this is really true then the evil of the 'world cult' is also in and for love's sake. So to criticise those outside your group for those things upon which you frown is to be having a go at god himself, is it not?

The true test of a man is made manifest in his decision to "go all the way" with God or remain frigidly apart from the Lover of his soul.

Next you'll start talking in terms of 'reaching bases'.

Enjoy the match Beth?

OF,

they don't do entertainment!

Although, sometimes, neither do Villa. :winkold:

Dear Pad (Brillo),

It is a shame that you lacked the courtesy to reply to my questions about the insult and the single post when you returned to the site last night. I guess you lack any ounce of decency.

Ah well, I really hope your personality is not as abrasive as your monicker implies and that someone somewhere loves you (on this earth rather than off/beyond it).

This thread has been rather surreal and for the most part quite enjoyable but back to reality and the important stuff - must get ready to take in the Chelsea game.

OK - so I haven't looked at this thread for a while cos I just thought it was a debate about some cult. Now it is up at 30 odd pages.

Am I right in thinking that somehow word has got back to wherever that some chaps were taking the piss, and that the troops have rallied in force? It's just I can't be bothered to read all of the pages.

Ta.

Yes, really. But I think it is termed 'visiting with' rather than 'rallying in force'. :winkold:

Worth a read but obviously only if you've got the time to spare. Do not put anything worthwhile in your life off in order to read it all.

BrilloPad,

I wonder why you felt it necessary to insult me when you clearly are not on the strong city wavelength ? I refer to your reliance upon the monkeys theory (no foundation for the attribution btw and the Lear aspect is novel).

Was it just to be argumentative or are you in the habit of joining a forum in order to effect single post unconstructive criticism?

Whatamatta you, Snowycrap, you run outta things to say that require even minimal cerebral activity? Well, actually of all I've read that you wrote, none was really needed. But then, some people's only real talent is spitting into the wind.

Jolly good.

I think the standard phrase is pissing in the wind or are you required to tone that down.

Is the weak city theme now just to chuck out insults about the cerebral activity required to say something or read something.

Ooh, look what I did there. I altered the name of something/somebody in order to have a go at something humorous.

'snowycrap' .

In your style : shaddup you face. :winkold:

No, really, it's always good to hear enlightened viewpoints such as yours.

I've got to hand it to you snowy, except for the last line about the 48, it is the first reasonable thing you've posted since I've been on this thread.

Can I take it that you still don't get irony over the pond, then? :winkold:

Will you be linking to my post from your website?