Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 136 Location: JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 5:22 am Post subject: Why must we stay on topic?
Hello Eugene
Thanks for demonstrating your own brand of forum popery in censoring what you think is off-topic, and part-posting what you deem is allowable. I certainly will not trouble you in this thread, as it is clear I am not on a level playing field with you. I don't even know why I bother. Did you read through the rest of my post? I wonder. I have deleted the rest of that post you took liberty with. Pity you can't even see how this thread is showing you up for what you really are. Carry on without me molesting or raining on your parade. God bless.
Topic title and link added by moderator. _________________ Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2004 9:50 am Post subject: Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness
Derrick,
Try to believe in this Scripture. "We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth" (2 Corinthians 13:8).
Everyone can read the original thread. Our user agreement prohibits posting off-topic. I believe that the topic proposed by me centers around being pope and president, the edict of Theodosius and legislating doctrine. Don't suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Here's what you wrote that I felt was "off-topic." Let everyone be fully persuaded in their own mind.
But what about the trinity? The SDA Church eventually accepted trinitarianism as a Christian teaching after 1888, and before 1915, and the above quoted writer, A.T. Jones, subtley signaled in his writings after 1888 this growing acceptance even in his time . How? A.T. Jones is on record only mentioning the trinity after 1888, as he compared the Papacy, in past history, forcing the people (by state law) to believe in the “inspiration of the Holy Scriptures”, the doctrine of “the trinity”, and Christianity in general, with the U.S. presenting a similar threat to liberty of conscience by forcing politicians to be “religious” or “belong to a religious denomination”, to be qualified “for office under the United Sates” (see his books,” Ecclesiastical Empire”, 1901, pgs. 837-838, and “The Two Republics”, 1891, pages 590 and 801).
This could hardly be seen as him still opposing trinitarian ideology (which he earlier opposed), since he also spoke against forcing anyone (by state law) to accept the “Holy Scriptures”, “a religious denomination”, and Christianity “professed by almost the whole community”. He even mentions the belief in the “communion” of saints and the “resurrection of the dead” as part of the Christian faith that Roman state religion, in the past, forced upon people. His subject was “religious liberty” as against “religious test” (as seen by the U.S. Constitution), NOT the trinity! But if you want clues to suggest how he eventually saw the trinity itself, or any Godhead trinity for that matter AFTER 1888, then see the quote below:
Quote:
“In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them [Arians and Trinitarians] wrote volumes, as if contending against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and “all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of persons, yet, from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace [quoted from Socrates]…
There was no dispute about [notice, not ‘opinion’, or ‘teaching’, but the] the*FACT of there being a Trinity; it was about the nature of the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity, but they differed upon the precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father”
-A.T. Jones, The Two Republics, 1891, pg. 333
This reality of three persons being a part of the Godhead, or there being a trinity in the Godhead was a fact even Arius accepted because the Scriptures are clear about this. This had to be so, because a trinity is as simple as a "trio", and not necessarily the 'godblob' version taught by the Papacy. We need to distinguish between the version which was being enforced by the Papacy, and the truth about the "Heavenly Trio" of "living persons"; still a trinity of sorts. HOWEVER, NOT EVEN THE TRUTH (NO MATTER HOW BIBLICAL) MUST BE FORCED UPON PEOPLE BY STATE LAW. THAT IS WHERE THEODOSIUS HAD IT ALL WRONG!!
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 136 Location: JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 6:39 am Post subject:
Eugene,
You are clearly intoxicated with a little sense of power to censor, and is capable of being a dishonest man, bearing false witness when it so pleases your adgenda. Why did you not post my entire presentation here (including the quotation from A.T. Jones), since it is your intention to allow your readers to decide in their own minds if I was being "off-topic"? Giving the disjointed/altered version effectively bears false witness of my presentation/post, since the opening portion was left out!! My intention was to BOTH show that nothing is inherently wrong with basic trinitarianism (not necessarily the Papal version), despite and while I do agree that forcing truth upon anyone by state law is unacceptable and un-Christian. Trying to manipulate how I should express myself in this matter is just your ploy to prevent me from highlighting your possibly hidden anti-Trinitarian adgenda as you spoke of Theodosius. If you are honest, you will not alter this response of mine, and you will also present my earlier post fully unaltered, so that readers can have a better judgment. It is only fair to give the full facts if you want your readers to be jurors in this matter. It would have been better that you did not post any of it, than to post only certain portions meant to sway reader opinion. Come on Eugene, you do know better, don't you? I do hope so. _________________ Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)
Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 8:32 am Post subject: This forum champions the right of due process
Derrick,
I hope you realize that the Midheaven and High Mountain forums are for the purposes of promoting my gospel and my doctrines and my agenda and not your agenda. Censorship in those higher forums certainly applies. It's the Adventist way.
Arguments for the loyal opposition belong in the lower forums.
It's not up to me to present your case. You're the one who deleted the portion I thought was acceptable. I returned to you in email what I found unacceptable. In the future, I will happily comply with your wishes and delete any post of yours entirely instead of specifying what is on-topic and relevant and what isn't, because you request it.
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 136 Location: JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
Posted: Sat May 08, 2004 2:14 am Post subject: Re: This forum champions the right of due process
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Derrick,
...In the future, I will happily comply with your wishes and delete any post of yours entirely instead of specifying what is on-topic and relevant and what isn't, because you request it.
However, my statement in relation to an earlier post you tampered with said simply:
Quote:
It is only fair to give the full facts if you want your readers to be jurors in this matter. It would have been better that you did not post any of it, than to post only certain portions meant to sway reader opinion.
It is interesting how you will conveniently misinterpret and misconstrue in order to further your aims. I have obviously been a constant source of annoyance to you, simply for taking issue with you at times, and with (as you interestingly put it) "your gospel", and "your doctrines" (or refusing to have unecessary controversy with those obsessed with debate on your forum). My presence on your forum is not pleasing to you (even though you pretend that all views are welcomed, and behave as if censorship is not practiced by you on this forum). I rain too much on YOUR parade. Thus you will grasp at any opportunity to muzzle me. Well Eugene, do what you like. If my statement in relation to one post is being misconstrued and used as an excuse to effectively squeeze me out of your forum, then so be it. Delete my future posts all you like, while proclaiming that your forum is not one governed by censorship, and while hypocritically declaring: "Don't suppress the truth in unrighteousness". God, HIS gospel, and HIS doctrines need no force of law, or powers of censorship in ordfer to have an advenatage, and yet you moved and altered my post in the very thread which decries such papal actions!!! Gosh, it is so sad when we can't see ourselves for what we truly are. Be reminded though that your forum is just one among many, and democracy and truth will never remain shackled for too long. GOD BLESS!! Love you despite. _________________ Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)
Posted: Sun May 09, 2004 8:30 am Post subject: Biblical censorship
Derrick,
If you want to resurrect the edited post that was approved by me and deleted by you and make some point about it in this thread, you are very welcome to do so. Also, please understand that you still do not grasp the meaning of the user agreement and the forum rules. What makes you think that I recognize you as a believer and qualified to teach anything in Midheaven or in the High Mountain forums?
I practice censorship to keep sacred places sacred. I am required to do this by Scripture.
"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." 2 John 1:9-11.
The degree of freedom permitted on this board is enormous. Are you utterly unperceiving or just deluded? I allow angry arguments and conventional errors in the Plain of Megiddo forums, unusual nonsense in the jail forum and pure dissolution in the Bottomless Pit.
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 136 Location: JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 12:59 pm Post subject:
I will have nothing further to do with your "puppet courtroom" forum, in which you are both judge and juror all at once, and where you have all freedom to twist the facts to suit your own selfish aims. Very soon I am expecting to see that elusive/mysterious character, "CTC" (probably your own pseudonym) endeavoring to defend your biased approach in presenting/reporting someone else's work (in this case mine). Even he however will not be able to present you as nothing more than someone who is an "offshoot" SDA parading as a supporter of true Adventism. I, however, remain a stout defender of truth as it is in Jesus, and a mainstream member of the true Remnant Church, the SDA Church. I really do wonder why you strive to present me as something else but true SDA. I may not be qualified to teach in the twisted ministry of YOUR gospel and YOUR doctrines, but at least due process says that you should leave my unaltered responses (like all others) in the thread they were posted (http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=281) so that readers are not misled. And if you don't post this I can't say I would be surprised. God bless. _________________ Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)
Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 9:17 am Post subject: There you go again, expressing disbelief in 2 Cor. 13:8
No Derrick, you are very wrong. You have no right to profane the sanctity of Midheaven or the High Mountains. Your response indicates that you refuse to believe in obvious common sense. The laws of God are explicit and clear. Christ's disciples must obey the laws of heaven on this earth. If you don't represent my ministry then you are not authorized to teach in my sanctuary. Who do you think you are — a cyber-terrorist? What you do represent is this Spirit of Prophecy truism:
"Those who are so stubborn that they will not comply with the prayer of Christ will be lawless, loveless, impolite."
The disrespect you show for decency and order (1 Corinthians 14:40) proves that you're not a true SDA.
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 136 Location: JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 11:43 pm Post subject:
Eugene,
Even the kingdom of Satan has rules to govern its subjects, but I will never be bound by them. So rules are to be strictly obeyed ONLY in context, that is, if they are fair, always applied fairly, and consistently (not in a biased way) and come from a good source. That is hardly the case here, and I earlier made a blunder to agree to your rules because I never had a track record of you Eugene. Now I do, and hindsight is indeed twenty-twenty vision. It is so sad to see you equating your forum rules (and your often subjective, biased, and often unfair application of them) to the laws of Heaven, and sad too that you seem to think yourself an appointed prophet of God, when you are just as biased, vindictive, and vain like all the rest of us. I guess only you are convinced of this 'divine appointment, you think you have. I wont try to rescue you from your delusion. Dream on "brother Miller". Be consistent and post this too in this "court" forum". Bye. _________________ Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)
The warfare against God's law commenced in heaven. Satan was determined to bring God to his ideas, his way, to force Him to change the law of His government. This was the cause of the war in heaven. Satan worked upon the sympathies of the angelic host by his deceptive attitude, but he was expelled from heaven, and now he is determined to carry out on this earth the plans [he] instituted in heaven. If he can persuade man to be disloyal to the law of God, he will feel that he is revenged upon God. He strives to instill into the minds of men his masterly deceptions, thus perverting judgment and justice, trampling down the law of God. This work—the conflict between truth and error—lies at the foundation of the trials and tribulations that the children of God will experience. This is the "trial of their faith." Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases Volume Twelve, page 37.
Jesus prayed for God's will to be done on earth just as it is perfectly carried out in heaven (Matthew 6:10). The Apostle Paul said, "Let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Corinthians 14:40). God's law is a law of love. The law of heaven is love. It takes a heart of love to treasure the law of God. For some people, the pursuit of love, peace, harmony and golden opportunities to exalt the truth and to save the lost are of less value than their priority for self-exaltation and imitating the principles of Satan.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
