|
Post by mountain on Dec 14, 2019 18:23:32 GMT -5
How about you giving your definition of grace? Please do not use human imagination but rather support your answer from the Bible. Grace = Thanks for making it possible for me to delete mine.
Final comp. (a few seconds ago") Well you wrong-footed me with that one. Grace = 'Thanks for making it possible for me to delete mine.' I guess that must be in the Gospel according to John somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 14, 2019 22:53:36 GMT -5
Well you wrong-footed me with that one. Grace = 'Thanks for making it possible for me to delete mine.' I guess that must be in the Gospel according to John somewhere? I think it is part of the gospel of Lloyd Fortt.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 15, 2019 0:29:57 GMT -5
Well you wrong-footed me with that one. Grace = 'Thanks for making it possible for me to delete mine.' I guess that must be in the Gospel according to John somewhere? I think it is part of the gospel of Lloyd Fortt. Is this the Loyd Fortt that you are referring to, RATIONAL? www.amazon.com/Search-Truth-Workers-Words...
A Search for the Truth: The Workers Words Exposed by Lloyd Fortt [Lloyd Fortt] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
Is Lloyd Fortt someone who posts here on TMB?
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Dec 15, 2019 4:33:34 GMT -5
Well you wrong-footed me with that one. Grace = 'Thanks for making it possible for me to delete mine.' I guess that must be in the Gospel according to John somewhere? I think it is part of the gospel of Lloyd Fortt. Thanks for that Rational. I've been up all night trying to find the reference. I was on the brink of ordering a new concordance as I was beginning to think my current one was inadequate.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 16, 2019 9:35:17 GMT -5
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as “intelligent design” to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. When this article first went to press in 2002, the Ohio Board of Education was debating whether to mandate such a change. Prominent antievolutionists of the day, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial, admitted that they intended for intelligent-design theory to serve as a “wedge” for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
The good news is that in 2005 the landmark legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover in Harrisburg, Pa., set binding precedent that the teaching of intelligent design in U.S. public schools is unconstitutional because the idea is fundamentally religious, not scientific. The bad news is that in response, creationists have reinvented their movement and pressed on. When they lost the ability to claim that creationist ideas are valid science, they switched to arguing that they were only supporting “academic freedom.” Worse, to further obscure the religious roots of their resistance, they now push for “critical analysis” of climate change, cloning research and other scientific endeavors that they paint as culturally oppressive.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 16, 2019 13:24:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Dec 18, 2019 12:36:50 GMT -5
Reference
Adding some information supported by pseudoscience data. (non-data) Science and Creationism - A View from the National Academy of Sciences. Excerpt from the download, very first paragraph: The term “evolution” usually refers to the biological evolution of living things. But the processes by which planets, stars, galaxies, and the universe form and change over time are also types of “evolution.” In all of these cases there is change over time, although the processes involved are quite different. In the late 1920s the American astronomer Edwin Hubble made a very interesting and important discovery. Hubble made observations that he interpreted as showing that distant stars and galaxies are receding from Earth in every direction. Moreover, the velocities of recession increase in proportion with distance, a discovery that has been confirmed by numerous and repeated measurements since Hubble’s time. The implication of these findings is that the universe is expanding. Hubble’s hypothesis of an expanding universe leads to certain deductions. One is that the universe was more condensed at a previous time. From this deduction came the suggestion that all the currently observed matter and energy in the universe were initially condensed in a very small and infinitely hot mass. A huge explosion, known as the Big Bang, then sent matter and energy expanding in all directions ....
If the entire material universe was at one time “initially condensed in a very small and infinitely hot mass.” either that “mass” always existed or (your suggestion fits here). So, If the hypothesis starts off with 'eternal' material the hypothesis is NOT science – it is story telling. And if anything else fills the suggestion-blank the hypothesis is NOT science – it is story telling. So right up front this paper stops being “sientific” in its first paragraph, which presupposes nothing better than its own 'authoritative' ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE contained right within that first paragraph. I do not intend to waste my time picking through a paper that presents pseudoscienc within its opening paragraph. This post is not posted for the eyes of TMB members and therefore unless one of them quotes and re-posts it , it will be deleted within 30 minutes.(Final comp. “3 minutes ago”). Ah Grace again! Grace = the ability to delete mine! You had me wondering. Now you provide an example!
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Dec 18, 2019 13:01:42 GMT -5
I haven't a clue what you are on about, but I'll take your word for it. Glad though that you have shown grace and deleted your post!
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Dec 18, 2019 13:16:32 GMT -5
I haven't a clue what you are on about, but I'll take your word for it. Glad though that you have shown grace and deleted your post! I like that - so remain "clue"less. That certainly won't be difficult, but whether that is down to my own cluelessness, or the content of your post, in the words of my dear friend Nathan.....I will let the readers decide! Oh by the way, speaking of Nathan, do you know he's looking for internet workers for this new internet church that's starting up next year (apparently it goes all the way back to the beginning of the internet). It could be a good number for you? Plenty of opportunities to show grace and delete your posts! Give it some thought!
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Dec 18, 2019 14:10:42 GMT -5
That certainly won't be difficult, but whether that is down to my own cluelessness, or the content of your post, in the words of my dear friend Nathan.....I will let the readers decide! Oh by the way, speaking of Nathan, do you know he's looking for internet workers for this new internet church that's starting up next year (apparently it goes all the way back to the beginning of the internet). It could be a good number for you? Plenty of opportunities to show grace and delete your posts! Give it some thought! Ah - there ya go, quiick, switch topic ----.... So regarding your concerns for Nathan's proseyitizing, I hope Nathan finds some help - because those workers who have already tried their proselytizing on the net have not performed well in their own favor on the net, nor does Nathan who tries to spread his triteistic polytheism alone as far as I know. Perhaps only present day workers would bite Nathan's bait. Who knows whether Nathan will end up living on other peoples' backs in a hotel roon in Jerusalem with bulging pockets full of contributions from dupes - with yet another Bible illiterate off-shoot of 2x2ism. And THAT is about the extent of the thought I will give to YOUR attempt to proseytize for the 'Nathaites'. I didn't know we on a topic? Remember I'm clueless as to what you were on about. Anyway, it seems you do not want to become an internet worker? Therefore I've only got one thing to say...... Virgs!
|
|
|
Post by speak on Dec 18, 2019 14:41:21 GMT -5
I haven't a clue what you are on about, but I'll take your word for it. Glad though that you have shown grace and deleted your post! I like that - so remain "clue"less. Not much grace in that comment.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Dec 18, 2019 15:39:18 GMT -5
I like that - so remain "clue"less. Not much grace in that comment. Grace only applies when Grats deletes it. Then you'll see grace in abundance. You've just got to give it to Grats. He's the one!
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 19, 2019 1:37:44 GMT -5
Well you wrong-footed me with that one. Grace = 'Thanks for making it possible for me to delete mine.' I guess that must be in the Gospel according to John somewhere? I think it is part of the gospel of Lloyd Fortt. This is one of the reviews of his book. From Amazon. Although this book is valuable because it exposes some true facts (and some untrue assumptions) regarding the religion, the author's bitterness and vindictive attitude bleeds through on every page. If his desired result was to help the people already in the religion, he failed 100%. If he wanted to warn those outside the religion, he did present his personal theology as backup. For religious scholars, though, the book may give the impression that the religion is a cult-like atmosphere, which it is not. This might cause religious scholars to minimize its power, rather than take the sect's outreach throughout the entire world seriously. (Actually, the "facts" of this sect can be stated in one sentence: THE RELIGION IS ONLY 100 YEARS OLD--started by one man; it does not go back to the 12 and 70 or the ones who preached in Acts. Backup for this fact: George Walker did not state which worker he heard the gospel from because he heard it from Irving, and Irving was excommuniced after "The Truth" got started--see a photograph in "The Secret Sect," by Doug Parker.) Having been in the religion for 42 years, my opinions are as valid as the author's (he was in 14 years) and there is no reason to condem or hurt anyone in the religion as he did. The only reason one needs to leave the religion is the misrepresentation of its history, which makes its core belief of "all other religions are wrong," rather invalid. Conclusion: the book is partially true, but not as valid as Parker's scholarly work which was well documented and without negative emotions.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 19, 2019 1:40:16 GMT -5
Here's another review.
User Review - I don't recommend this book. It's supposed to be a dictionary of general terminology or jargon used by the Two by Two church. However, within a definition, the author takes off on diatribes against 2x2 preachers, and also gives his opinions, and preaches his beliefs. His venom against the two by Two church spews out in vitrolic statements all through the book.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Dec 19, 2019 3:18:59 GMT -5
Irvine not lrving, curly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 15:42:08 GMT -5
Per Gratu, somewhere back on page 1
"Mars moons mystery How did Phobos and Deimos get to where they are? by David Catchpoole"
Well, because astronomy is a hobby of mine, I enjoyed reading it, so I'll prolong this thread with my opinion, too. A Grad student level could probably come up with a likely scenario for Mar's moons, if it hasn't been done already. Otherwise, as is the case with many of these former mysteries, it'll just be a matter of time before there will be a reasonable explanation, per the laws of physics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 20:13:00 GMT -5
It's already been done (no surprise really), several reasonable scenarios, the supernatural the least likely of them
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 29, 2019 0:55:08 GMT -5
Irvine not lrving, curly. Ta for that, I was just doing a Nathan and did not proof read the paste.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 29, 2019 0:56:26 GMT -5
“It's already been done (no surprise really), several reasonable scenarios, the supernatural the least likely of them “ If – I say again, IF you did read the document privided on page 1, you are now denying its content without one attempt to even try to refute the serious problems it shows within YOUR preset post. I'm of course, 'impressed' but not surprised any longer on here. Final comp (a few seconds ago”) I get as far as the first verse in the bible and realize it's a mythology. Why would I or anyone that has worked that out then continue to read the bible or any apologetic work on it?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 29, 2019 1:27:42 GMT -5
I get as far as the first verse in the bible and realize it's a mythology. Why would I or anyone that has worked that out then continue to read the bible or any apologetic work on it? First off, my reply to ettu was not posted for your eyes (or anyone else). Secondly my post said diddly squat about reading even as far as the first verse of the Bible. Therefore your response quoting a totally unrelated (to it) post looks 'good on you' in public. But thanks for quoting mine so I can delete mine and still get my response through to ettu – because YOU now own the only copy of that response to ettu. And of course, you know that I am counting on you similarly preserving and protecting this reply to you asa well. Final comp. “a few seconds ago”) Do you understand this is a public forum and not just one for your views only, or mine or anyone else. As for reading, you suggested that in your post. "If – I say again, IF you did read the document privided on page 1, you are now denying its content without one attempt to even try to refute the serious problems it shows within YOUR preset post. I'm of course, 'impressed' but not surprised any longer on here." Those documents referred to the bible.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 29, 2019 1:48:55 GMT -5
"Those documents referred to the bible." What "documents" are you referring to now -- it appears that your horn stuck in like a butt on something responding to someone else has your eyes blurred such that you can't even see mine said "document" SINGULAR. Maybe you had best stick your butt in posts that you can actually read for what they say -- huh? jesus christ do you not remember what you said five minutes ago? I even provided you with a copy of what you said.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 29, 2019 2:06:34 GMT -5
jesus christ do you not remember what you said five minutes ago? I even provided you with a copy of what you said. Yup - my memory is far more accurate than you seem to think it is, and I'm just back after having checked the "document" SINGULAR electronically - that document SINGULAR did not mention the Bible ONCE. So now your butt seems to have your head stuck up it too. But keep on trying, because "Jesus Christ" in your butt-ins might even help you fall even harder on your own inability to make sense within your butt-ins on discussions that do not include you or anyone else - huh? Come on - hurry up and preserve and protect this post - I'm getting bored waiting so long. Are you on drugs?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 29, 2019 2:40:47 GMT -5
Wow! I think that I am becomming a bit more dense with age!
It took me so long... to figure this out!
Lloyd Fortt is author of a book and from the reviews of his book it sounds as if the author writes much like our own "beloved" gratu!
Could they be the same?!!
A Search for the Truth: The Workers Words Exposed
by Lloyd Fortt
review. Although this book is valuable because it exposes some true facts (and some untrue assumptions) regarding the religion, the author's bitterness and vindictive attitude bleeds through on every page. If his desired result was to help the people already in the religion, he failed 100%. If he wanted to warn those outside the religion, he did present his personal theology as backup. For religious scholars, though, the book may give the impression that the religion is a cult-like atmosphere, which it is not. This might cause religious scholars to minimize its power, rather than take the sect's outreach throughout the entire world seriously. (Actually, the "facts" of this sect can be stated in one sentence: THE RELIGION IS ONLY 100 YEARS OLD--started by one man; it does not go back to the 12 and 70 or the ones who preached in Acts. Backup for this fact: George Walker did not state which worker he heard the gospel from because he heard it from Irving, and Irving was excommunicated. after "The Truth" got started--see a photograph in "The Secret Sect," by Doug Parker.) Having been in the religion for 42 years, my opinions are as valid as the author's (he was in 14 years) and there is no reason to condemn or hurt anyone in the religion as he did. The only reason one needs to leave the religion is the misrepresentation of its history, which makes its core belief of "all other religions are wrong," rather invalid.
Conclusion: the book is partially true, but not as valid as Parker's scholarly work which was well documented and without negative emotions.
Review - I don't recommend this book It's supposed to be a dictionary of general terminology or jargon used by the Two by Two church. However, within a definition, the author takes off on diatribes against 2x2 preachers, and also gives his opinions, and preaches his beliefs. His venom against the two by Two church spews out in vitrolic statements all through the book.
Surely these people are one & the same: gratu/Lloyd Fortt.
I must be slow these days by not having picked up on this resemblance before!
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 29, 2019 3:04:57 GMT -5
Wow! I think that I am becomming a bit more dense with age!
It took me so long... to figure this out! Lloyd Fortt is author of a book and from the reviews of his book it sounds as if the author writes much like our own "beloved" gratu!
Could they be the same?!! A Search for the Truth: The Workers Words Exposed
by Lloyd Forttreview.Although this book is valuable because it exposes some true facts (and some untrue assumptions) regarding the religion, the author's bitterness and vindictive attitude bleeds through on every page. If his desired result was to help the people already in the religion, he failed 100%. If he wanted to warn those outside the religion, he did present his personal theology as backup. For religious scholars, though, the book may give the impression that the religion is a cult-like atmosphere, which it is not. This might cause religious scholars to minimize its power, rather than take the sect's outreach throughout the entire world seriously. (Actually, the "facts" of this sect can be stated in one sentence: THE RELIGION IS ONLY 100 YEARS OLD--started by one man; it does not go back to the 12 and 70 or the ones who preached in Acts. Backup for this fact: George Walker did not state which worker he heard the gospel from because he heard it from Irving, and Irving was excommunicated. after "The Truth" got started--see a photograph in "The Secret Sect," by Doug Parker.) Having been in the religion for 42 years, my opinions are as valid as the author's (he was in 14 years) and there is no reason to condemn or hurt anyone in the religion as he did. The only reason one needs to leave the religion is the misrepresentation of its history, which makes its core belief of "all other religions are wrong," rather invalid.
Conclusion: the book is partially true, but not as valid as Parker's scholarly work which was well documented and without negative emotions. Review - I don't recommend this book It's supposed to be a dictionary of general terminology or jargon used by the Two by Two church. However, within a definition, the author takes off on diatribes against 2x2 preachers, and also gives his opinions, and preaches his beliefs. His venom against the two by Two church spews out in vitrolic statements all through the book. Surely these people are one & the same: gratu/Lloyd Fortt.
I must be slow these days by not having picked up on this resemblance before! I had my suspicions a wee while ago, A friend loaned me a copy a year or two ago and I found it was one of the most poorly written books I have ever read.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 29, 2019 5:31:33 GMT -5
Wow! I think that I am becomming a bit more dense with age!
It took me so long... to figure this out! Lloyd Fortt is author of a book and from the reviews of his book it sounds as if the author writes much like our own "beloved" gratu!
Could they be the same?!! A Search for the Truth: The Workers Words Exposed
by Lloyd Forttreview.Although this book is valuable because it exposes some true facts (and some untrue assumptions) regarding the religion, the author's bitterness and vindictive attitude bleeds through on every page. If his desired result was to help the people already in the religion, he failed 100%. If he wanted to warn those outside the religion, he did present his personal theology as backup. For religious scholars, though, the book may give the impression that the religion is a cult-like atmosphere, which it is not. This might cause religious scholars to minimize its power, rather than take the sect's outreach throughout the entire world seriously. (Actually, the "facts" of this sect can be stated in one sentence: THE RELIGION IS ONLY 100 YEARS OLD--started by one man; it does not go back to the 12 and 70 or the ones who preached in Acts. Backup for this fact: George Walker did not state which worker he heard the gospel from because he heard it from Irving, and Irving was excommunicated. after "The Truth" got started--see a photograph in "The Secret Sect," by Doug Parker.) Having been in the religion for 42 years, my opinions are as valid as the author's (he was in 14 years) and there is no reason to condemn or hurt anyone in the religion as he did. The only reason one needs to leave the religion is the misrepresentation of its history, which makes its core belief of "all other religions are wrong," rather invalid.
Conclusion: the book is partially true, but not as valid as Parker's scholarly work which was well documented and without negative emotions. Review - I don't recommend this book It's supposed to be a dictionary of general terminology or jargon used by the Two by Two church. However, within a definition, the author takes off on diatribes against 2x2 preachers, and also gives his opinions, and preaches his beliefs. His venom against the two by Two church spews out in vitrolic statements all through the book. Surely these people are one & the same: gratu/Lloyd Fortt.
I must be slow these days by not having picked up on this resemblance before! I had my suspicions a wee while ago, A friend loaned me a copy a year or two ago and I found it was one of the most poorly written books I have ever read. That's a clue.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 29, 2019 13:30:20 GMT -5
Wow! I think that I am becomming a bit more dense with age!
It took me so long... to figure this out! Lloyd Fortt is author of a book and from the reviews of his book it sounds as if the author writes much like our own "beloved" gratu!
Could they be the same?!! A Search for the Truth: The Workers Words Exposed
by Lloyd Forttreview.Although this book is valuable because it exposes some true facts (and some untrue assumptions) regarding the religion, the author's bitterness and vindictive attitude bleeds through on every page. If his desired result was to help the people already in the religion, he failed 100%. If he wanted to warn those outside the religion, he did present his personal theology as backup. For religious scholars, though, the book may give the impression that the religion is a cult-like atmosphere, which it is not. This might cause religious scholars to minimize its power, rather than take the sect's outreach throughout the entire world seriously. (Actually, the "facts" of this sect can be stated in one sentence: THE RELIGION IS ONLY 100 YEARS OLD--started by one man; it does not go back to the 12 and 70 or the ones who preached in Acts. Backup for this fact: George Walker did not state which worker he heard the gospel from because he heard it from Irving, and Irving was excommunicated. after "The Truth" got started--see a photograph in "The Secret Sect," by Doug Parker.) Having been in the religion for 42 years, my opinions are as valid as the author's (he was in 14 years) and there is no reason to condemn or hurt anyone in the religion as he did. The only reason one needs to leave the religion is the misrepresentation of its history, which makes its core belief of "all other religions are wrong," rather invalid.
Conclusion: the book is partially true, but not as valid as Parker's scholarly work which was well documented and without negative emotions. Review - I don't recommend this book It's supposed to be a dictionary of general terminology or jargon used by the Two by Two church. However, within a definition, the author takes off on diatribes against 2x2 preachers, and also gives his opinions, and preaches his beliefs. His venom against the two by Two church spews out in vitrolic statements all through the book. Surely these people are one & the same: gratu/Lloyd Fortt.
I must be slow these days by not having picked up on this resemblance before! I think someone on here did say that gratu is indeed Lloyd Fortt and gratu himself as alluded to that when he first posted about his book.
|
|
|
Post by Magic-8-Ball on Dec 30, 2019 10:46:54 GMT -5
Wow! I think that I am becomming a bit more dense with age!
It took me so long... to figure this out! Lloyd Fortt is author of a book and from the reviews of his book it sounds as if the author writes much like our own "beloved" gratu!
Could they be the same?!!
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jan 2, 2020 17:01:29 GMT -5
James was talking about what believers should show before mankind not in being saved. There is no contradiction. It’s a simple deduction to realize what James was saying in chapter 2:18. Yea a man MAY SAY, Thou hast Faith, and I have works: shew ME THY FAITH WITHOUT THY WORKS, and “I WILL SHOW YOU MY FAITH BY MY WORKS.” Both Paul and James show two different sides to a coin, Paul shows the front side/Faith! and James shows the the back side/Works! of the same coin. There is NO contradiction, both sides are part of the same coin.
Faith is before God. Works is before man. Only one side is your salvation!. That is a FAITH that actually Works!.
|
|