Question for all you Christians

[Arthur Durnan]

And, of course, the precise OPPOSITE of a physically-resurrected Christ is the Jehovah's False Witnesses' version of a Christ "whose body was consumed into gasses and hid by Jehovah God as a memorial for all future generations!!" What outstanding POPPYCOCK from the Pittsburgh haberdasher, Charles Taze Russell, who died divorced from his wife, Maria Ackley, and therefore falls under the Apostle Paul's teaching re essentially of leadership integrity in BOTH church AND home!

Thank You, Lord Jesus, for literally conquering the grave for me!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Grungekid]

And, of course, the precise OPPOSITE of a physically-resurrected Christ is the Jehovah's False Witnesses' version of a Christ "whose body was consumed into gasses and hid by Jehovah God as a memorial for all future generations!!" What outstanding POPPYCOCK from the Pittsburgh haberdasher, Charles Taze Russell, who died divorced from his wife, Maria Ackley, and therefore falls under the Apostle Paul's teaching re essentially of leadership integrity in BOTH church AND home!

Thank You, Lord Jesus, for literally conquering the grave for me!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

Whoa, isn't that a little bit degrading toward JW's? I thought this discussion board was non-denominational. What's more, is that how believers ought to treat someone they disagree with?

[Massorite]

And, of course, the precise OPPOSITE of a physically-resurrected Christ is the Jehovah's False Witnesses' version of a Christ "whose body was consumed into gasses and hid by Jehovah God as a memorial for all future generations!!" What outstanding POPPYCOCK from the Pittsburgh haberdasher, Charles Taze Russell, who died divorced from his wife, Maria Ackley, and therefore falls under the Apostle Paul's teaching re essentially of leadership integrity in BOTH church AND home!

Thank You, Lord Jesus, for literally conquering the grave for me!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

Whoa, isn't that a little bit degrading toward JW's? I thought this discussion board was non-denominational. What's more, is that how believers ought to treat someone they disagree with?

Will Grungekid when it is a lie from the pits of hell it is a lie from the pits of hell and we as lovers of Christ have a duty to call false doctrine what it is. So that those who might be decieved by it, night not be. After all Jesus didn't hesitate to tell anybody what they were or how they were wrong. He called it like He saw it. Just ask Peter.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Massorite

[Grungekid]

Will Grungekid when it is a lie from the pits of hell it is a lie from the pits of hell and we as lovers of Christ have a duty to call false doctrine what it is. So that those who might be decieved by it, night not be. After all Jesus didn't hesitate to tell anybody what they were or how they were wrong. He called it like He saw it. Just ask Peter.

Can't argue with you on that. I just thought that there were JW's here and that they fell into that category of 'Christian denomination' (most do believe in Christ as savior, even if He isn't physical) and thus protected by the non-denominational descriptor on this site from inter-interpretational disagreements.

[nebula]

Hey Rumple -

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner - with the lag that had been going on in the Board, I didn't spend time venturing into the Outer Court.

But anyway...

Although I can appreciate where you are coming from in this, the fact that her last post was to admit the name meant a German medal of honor - and it was she who explained its association with the Third Reich - she opened the door wide open for speculation.

She did do that and now less likely it is still possible that the name was taken on the basis of honor the cross of Christ rather than in some favorable recognition of the Third Reich. Lacking more evidence I would still be inclined to give her the benefit of a doubt.

Honoring the cross? Based on her previous comments, I find no evidence to believe this could be her motive. Can you find any? How can she honor the cross of Christ when she does not believe Jesus physically rose from the dead? For without this belief, how can she believe in Jesus' death on the cross to bring redemption?

As to her identification with the Nazis, NO, we should not ignor it it, but neither should we condemn her on that basis alone. The Pharisees were quick to condemn each and every publican because of their profession, but Jesus called one of them to follow Him and he (Matthew) apparently turned out OK.

The trouble is she hasn't been back to answer the question of why she chose that name. The name sounds suspicious, she was asked to explain, and she didn't respond. Don't you think she ought to?

Some of us here have been personally impacted by what the Nazis did. Do not we deserve an answer?

But as for Jesus remaining silent, I fail to see how that could be justification for defending her silence. Jesus had to remain silent in order to fulfill prophecy (like a lamb to the slaughter is silent). Besides, if He had defended Himself, He would have "escaped" being sentenced to death.

Yes, as Christians we need to act justly, but just behavior does not "let the guilty go unpunished."

She is free to respond and defend her screen name at any time. All we have done was to express our concern (and shock) over the name she chose to use. Do you consider this to be passing sentence?