God is Only a Theory

SD,

After commenting on what I said about Santorum,,, I looked slightly at Gutzman. At this point all I see is that you are suggesting "modern" sources... with "modern" ideologies. Find something for me in the "antiquities" of the history of this country that substantiate a secular form of U.S government,,, beyond Jefferson or Locke. The more research I do on Jefferson... the less he seems like a Deist. However... Locke being the curious person he was,,, seemed to gravitate toward Greek philosophiy.
 
I think the honest-hearted ones lurking here have enough info. to make their own decision. I just wanted to make sure that your belittling of God's name did not go unchallenged.
Now that they have the scriptures before them and the truth about the Tetragrammaton(God's personal name) occurring 6900+ times in Scripture, showing that Yahweh WANTS us to know Him and pray using that name, I can be satisfied I've talked enough.
You are free to follow Satan's hiding of the name of God.
Jesus answer to Satan during the 3rd test the devil put him thru tells it all.`Jesus said it is to God(Yahweh) ALONE you must render worship.' THEN the devil left him alone for a while. Read it, believe it....Jesus said it.
don-ohio :)^)
 
I think the honest-hearted ones lurking here have enough info. to make their own decision. I just wanted to make sure that your belittling of God's name did not go unchallenged.
Now that they have the scriptures before them and the truth about the Tetragrammaton(God's personal name) occurring 6900+ times in Scripture, showing that Yahweh WANTS us to know Him and pray using that name, I can be satisfied I've talked enough.
You are free to follow Satan's hiding of the name of God.
Jesus answer to Satan during the 3rd test the devil put him thru tells it all.`Jesus said it is to God(Yahweh) ALONE you must render worship.' THEN the devil left him alone for a while. Read it, believe it....Jesus said it.
don-ohio :)^)

Don Ohio.

Your tone and style of writing will turn the most devout believers away from the lord. Perhaps you are a messenger of satan!
 
Tijoe,

Don is,,, he's just bind to that fact. Go ahead Don,,, keep urinating in the wine vats. (honestly people,,, I'm not normally this mean,,, Don just brings it out in me). As Jesus said Don... go away!!! I've dealt with your kind before.

Obviuosly Don,,, you are not willing to have an open discussion. So just leave. The poular concensus is that you and your cultish beliefs,,, are not welcome here!!!

Notice Tijoe... that he hasn't answered any of my questions,,, but instead twists what I say. It was the same way in the last thread.
 
Again don... Spend some time in the trenches of life... Helping people,,, instead of beatintg them over the head with your nwt rhetoric !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are doing nothing constuctive to further the kingdom of god !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You can't cuss much either!

KS

When I was in the 3rd-4th grades, we lived in a small town in Washington state. One of the town's 'society' ladies took it into her head to 'convert' my mother from being a Christian to being in JW. After several sessions of Bible study where the JW position was refuted, with the society gal leaving in tears of frustration, (they even tried to import a JW 'big gun' to overwhelm my mother) the JW folk finally gave up and departed in confusion. My mother was quite conversant with the Bible.
 
I am not too sympathetic to JWs. Years ago, I dated a JW woman whose parents were JWs. She was a sweet gal, but was totally conditioned to the JW mindset. I went to many of their worships and outings. Over time, I just couldn't take all the indoctrination and BS. Needless to say we parted ways. It was interesting to note that after attending numerous of their services, I noticed that many of them were reformed drug/alcohol addicts, people with mental issues, people with a low level of education and intelligence, and sadly, children conditioned in their way of operating.
I found that the senior elders tended to be manipulative, and glowing with the power of control over their disciples. (Cultish)
Enough written...
 
Tijoe,

And according to the JW teachings,,, any one of the people you have mentioned above... are allowed to claim themselves as one of the 144,000, (whether figurative or literal),,, when the Bible says that the 144,000, (again... whether figuative or literal)... kept themselves undefiled by this world.
 
I had a grandmother that was a JW. A decade or so back... I was elected to drive her back to her home state of Georgia. I was listening to Christian music on the radio, (like I usually do)... when all of a sudden she told me to change the station,,, and to stop trying to convert her.

I was doing no such thing... and years later when she died,,, I was deterred, (and told everything but I wasn't welcome),,, from going to her funeral service.
 
After commenting on what I said about Santorum,,, I looked slightly at Gutzman. At this point all I see is that you are suggesting "modern" sources... with "modern" ideologies.

Look again. To dismiss Gutzman out of hand is to show oneself to be quite foolish.

From here:
Kevin R. C. Gutzman is the New York Times best-selling author of five books, including the forthcoming Thomas Jefferson—Revolutionary: A Radical’s Struggle to Remake America. Gutzman is Professor and Chairman in the Department of History at Western Connecticut State University, and he holds a bachelor’s degree, a master of public affairs degree, and a law degree from the University of Texas at Austin, as well as an MA and a PhD in American history from the University of Virginia. He is also a faculty member at LibertyClassroom.com.

Dr. Gutzman's first book was the New York Times best-seller The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,which is still selling consistently nearly ten years since its initial publication. It is unique in joining the fruits of the latest scholarship and a very readable presentation to a distinctly Jeffersonian point of view. It was a Main Selection of the Conservative Book Club. His second book, Virginia’s American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840, explores the issue what the Revolutionaries made of the Revolution in Thomas Jefferson’s home state. After that, he co-authored Who Killed the Constitution? The Federal Government vs. American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama with New York Times best-selling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Gutzman's most recent book is James Madison and the Making of America, was a Main Selection of the History Book Club, and it received positive reviews from The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, and numerous other publications. His new book, Thomas Jefferson—Revolutionary: A Radical’s Struggle to Remake America, promises to be his biggest hit yet.

Gutzman's essay “Lincoln as Jeffersonian: The Colonization Chimera” appeared in Lincoln Emancipated: The President and the Politics of Race, and his “James Madison and Ratification: A Triumph Over Adversity” appeared in A Companion to James Madison and James Monroe. Gutzman has appeared on hundreds of radio programs, as well as twice on C-SPAN 2's “BookTV,” once on CNN's “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” eight times on Fox News's “The Glenn Beck Program” (four with Beck and four with Judge Andrew Napolitano), and on NewsMax TV. He has also been interviewed by reporters from major outlets such as the AP, The Washington Times, The Philadelphia Enquirer, The Washington Post, The Hartford Business Journal, The Houston Chronicle online, Investor's Business Daily, Money Magazine, Connecticut Magazine, and The New York Times, among others. Kevin Gutzman was a featured expert in the documentary movies “John Marshall: Citizen, Statesman, Jurist” and “Nullification: The Rightful Remedy.”​


Find something for me in the "antiquities" of the history of this country that substantiate a secular form of U.S government,,, beyond Jefferson or Locke. The more research I do on Jefferson... the less he seems like a Deist. However... Locke being the curious person he was,,, seemed to gravitate toward Greek philosophiy.

I've quoted Jefferson.
I've quoted Madison.
I've given you one of the preimenent scholars on this time period in American history, and you have dismissed him.

I suspect that anything else I would offer would be similarly dismissed out of hand in favor of confirmation bias (via Google searches and parcing of contradictory claims). Why should I bother?
 
IIRC... I also put this in the "other" thread.

http://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html

Question: "Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?"

Answer: The New World Translation (NWT) is defined by the Jehovah's Witnesses’ parent organization (the Watchtower Society) as "a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah." The NWT is the anonymous work of the “New World Bible Translation Committee.” Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the anonymity is in place so that the credit for the work will go to God. Of course, this has the added benefit of keeping the translators from any accountability for their errors and prevents real scholars from checking their academic credentials.

The New World Translation is unique in one thing – it is the first intentional, systematic effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group's doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs. The “New World Bible Translation Committee” went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with Jehovah’s Witness theology. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, as new editions of the New World Translation were published, additional changes were made to the biblical text. As biblical Christians continued to point out Scriptures that clearly argue for the deity of Christ (for example), the Watchtower Society would publish new editions of the New World Translation with those Scriptures changed. Here are some of the more prominent examples of intentional revisions:

The New World Translation renders the Greek term word staurós ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross. The New World Translation does not translate the words sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus as "hell” because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in hell. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word parousia because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900s. In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word “other” despite its being completely absent from the original Greek text. It does this to give the view that “all other things” were created by Christ, instead of what the text says, “all things were created by Christ.” This is to go along with their belief that Christ is a created being, which they believe because they deny the Trinity.

The most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it as “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.

There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.

1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.

2. When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun's case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.

3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").

The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Just three verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of theos without the indefinite article as "God." Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.

The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation—only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy in the minds of those ignorant of the facts.

It is only the Watchtower's pre-conceived heretical beliefs that are behind the dishonest and inconsistent translation that is the New World Translation. The New World Translation is most definitely not a valid version of God’s Word. There are minor differences among all the major English translations of the Bible. No English translation is perfect. However, while other Bible translators make minor mistakes in the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek text into English, the NWT intentionally changes the rendering of the text to conform to Jehovah’s Witness theology. The New World Translation is a perversion, not a version, of the Bible.
 
Quote SD:

"Specifically, what "theocratical beliefs" was this country founded on? What textual evidence do you have to prove this?"

While the below link is not exactly textual evidence,,, I offer it as food for thought.

http://www.increasinglearning.com/american-theocracy.html

I'll work on the textual evidence.

Your link only parces and plays linquistic games with the definition of "theocracy". When facts don't fit the rhetoric, adjust definitions to make the facts fit the rhetoric. It is a classic rhetorical technique going back to before the Declaration of Independence. It is also a manipulative technique, and only stifles any effort at truth seeking.

You also seem to be missing my first two questions:
  1. What defines "theocratical beliefs"?
  2. What distinguishes "theocratical beliefs" from other beliefs derived from Christianity (like Lockean Natural Law)?

I am not interested in whatever links you can find via a google search. What I am looking for for is your words. I am also not interested in parcing. That would simply show you really have no argument. If there is anything to your claim, you don't need to parce. You should be able to make a coherent argument on your own.
 
SD,

If the parsing you are talking about... is referring to the construct I made out of the Kennedy video,,, it was only in an attempt to show that the recent mindset of people about Kennedy's idea of "separation of Chuch and State" is false.

parse [paarss]
(past and past participle parsed, present participle pars·ing, 3rd person present singular pars·es)
verb

1. vti describe grammatical role of word: to describe the grammatical role of a word in a sentence, or undergo this process

2. vti analyze grammatical structure of sentence: to analyze and describe the grammatical structure of a sentence, or undergo this process

Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Kennedy was assuring his constituents... that if he became president,,, that Catholicism would not become the "national" religion of the U.S. ,,, and I took everything I parsed in proper context of the intent of the whole video. Within the context of the whole video,,, Kennedy says NOTHING to suggest or imply that "religion" is to be kept out of government... but he does suggest and imply,,, that there will be no national religion.

Go back to the Kennedy video,,, and listen carefully several times to the 3 minute or so section I talk about... and see if I am telling the truth or not.

I'll get back to the rest later tonight. I'm on "snail" internet right now... and have other things to do today. If/when I get more downtime tonight... I will jump on "high-speed" ... and do some more research.
 
Quote SD:

"You also seem to be missing my first two questions:
1.What defines "theocratical beliefs"?
2. What distinguishes "theocratical beliefs" from other beliefs derived from Christianity (like Lockean Natural Law)?"


The above part is what I am working on... but my time is severely divided right now. I will also go back and check the link you question. I would love to spend hours debating this,,, but shouldn't even be on line right now. I have a week or so off work at the moment... and have many projects to get caught up on,,, since I have been working 50-80 hours a week out of town for the last year or so. I just got on quickly to check e-mail,,, and I already have over an hour into what I have said in the last few posts.

At the same time though... you are really doing no different that I am doing,,, by quoting sources and comments without providing context. At least I am trying to provide context, (although maybe poorly).

TWICE now... you have quoted Gutzman,,, ... ,,, FROM HIS OWN WEBSITE. So you are using a source... that confirms it's OWN source,,, not outside sources of information.

That's not a very good way to substantiate anything you are suggesting.

Again... I'll get back to this as soon as I can.
 
At the same time though... you are really doing no different that I am doing,,, by quoting sources and comments without providing context. At least I am trying to provide context, (although maybe poorly).

Where the context wasn't clear in the original quote, I tried to provided it. Can you cite specifics?

TWICE now... you have quoted Gutzman,,, ... ,,, FROM HIS OWN WEBSITE. So you are using a source... that confirms it's OWN source,,, not outside sources of information.

A source that confirms it's own source?!

Where are you coming up with this stuff? The claims made can EASILY be independently verified online.

Are you NOT supposed to look at someone's bio on their site when ascertaining their credentials? If that is what you saying, that is a laughable standard.

If you MUST have some independent source to verify his credentials, his wikipedia page is within the first 5 links on google when you search his name. How about his bio page at the college he works at?

Education:

Ph.D. in History, University of Virginia, 1999; J.D., University of Texas School of Law, 1990; Master of Public Affairs, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, 1990; M.A. in History, University of Virginia, 1994; B.A. in Plan II/History Honors, With Honors and with Special Honors in History, University of Texas, 1985

Teaching Interests:
American Revolution; Age of Jefferson; Antebellum United States; Southern History; American Constitutional History

Research Interests:

Professor Gutzman is an expert in the Middle Period of American history, 1760-1877, with additional areas of expertise in American constitutional and Southern history.​

Are those sources good enough?

As to comparing your sources vs my sources. My sources are scholars talking about subject matter that they are nationally recognized experts in. Your's are not experts and, in a few cases at least, are pushing an agenda and engaging in misinformation, whether you realize it or not.

Maybe the experts I site are wrong and the non-experts you cite are right. But that is dependent on the argument being made. Misinformation, equivocation and parcing are automatic disqualifiers when it comes to that standard. It hurts your own credibility when you dismiss experts on frivolous grounds.

As to the parcing thing; going into Santorum's comments to such a degree as to examine (and try to apply your own context to) Kennedy's Speech misses the original point being made and changes the focus of the discussion. It's a red herring, at best. Santorum's comments and Kennedy's speech were merely what the article was bouncing off of. The points being made were in reaction to that (my quoting of that section of the article, in particular, should have made that clear). All the historical evidence gets missed by focusing on trivialities.
 
Quote SD:

A source that confirms it's own source?!

Where are you coming up with this stuff? The claims made can EASILY be independently verified online.

Are you NOT supposed to look at someone's bio on their site when ascertaining their credentials? If that is what you saying, that is a laughable standard.


Really???

If I proclaimed myself as a religious "expert",,, and had all sorts of Doctorates and degrees... and touted myself as knowledgable on a subject... and had my own website, (with Bio).... would that make me any more credible as to what I am saying????????????

How do you know whether or not,,, that one of the sites I have been using in this thread,,, as a reference... isn't my own???????????????

Just because Kevin Gutzman proclaims to be studied in a subject,,, doesn't mean he is the be all,,, end all on the subject... and differing points of view could agree with or reject what he is saying.

To me... Kevin Gutzman having his own site,,, and claiming his credibility... shows a bit of EGO in his message. This is an automatic "turn off" to me. Not to mention that most of the liberal news media forms,,, are the ones to point to Gutzman, (such as CNN and Anderson Cooper, etc.) Another red flag for me. I'll tell you what,,, buy me his book... and send it to me,,, and maybe I'll consider reading it.

Then again... it has mixed reviews:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/248747.The_Politically_Incorrect_Guide_to_the_Constitution

But there was one name I recognized:

http://prosperityplace.com/jim-bouchard-helping-leaders-become-better-people-tps108/

Another "self help" liberal that more or less says "I did it on my own", (and did it without God).

I didn't apply my own context to what Kennedy was saying. It is literally recorded in black and white. There is nothing there in that video,,, that I tried to make misleading or distracting. It says what it says. The interpretation is up to the listener... and what the conceive to be true.
 
What are some of the first words said by Kennedy in that video??? "I am grateful... to state my views... about a so called religious issue." "The cheif topic here tonight". And the rest from the 6 minute mark to roughly the 9 minute mark.

Kennedy was misquoted esrlier in this thread,,, and it wasn't me doing it. He says what he says, (let the reader understand).
 
If you want to show me context,,,then quote some other site that backs up what Gutzman says... with out quoting Gutzman. Obviously... by what you have accused me of,,, anybody can use a website to prove their side and views.

I'm still looking for something ai lost the other night,,, that would complete what I have typed up waiting to post. When I find the site I lost... I will post my thoughts.

But... if I haven't psoted this already:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

"The intent of this clause was to limit the power of the Federal Government in regard to religion thus ensuring freedom of religion in the United States of America."

So... as I originally said,,, the idea of separation was to keep govenment out of religion... not the other way around. Yeah,,, I think I posted that before.
 
Quote 04: `I had a grandmother that was a JW.'

So did she beat you with a stick to make you hate Bible truth so much? Of COURSE she didn't want to hear music founded on false beliefs taken from Babylonian concepts millennia ago. SHE knew better. You being content to wallow in the pagan beliefs of Christendom offended her. She no doubt loved you and was trying to straighten you out. don-ohio :)^)
 
The basis for aTheocratical beliefs:

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=theocracy

I'll choose door number 1 thank you.

1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

At least this USED to be true in this country for most people... but then I was a kid a few decades ago,,, but I do actually remember when God was the center of most people's lives. And not just on Sundays or Holidays... God came up as a subject during regular conversation. Most people used to acknowledge their Creator,,, Just as (most of) the founders of this nation did a couple centuries ago.

Dammit... where did that Jefferson letter go??? I'll find it... I just have to retrace my steps. :-(
 

Members online

Back
Top