Being critical of the teachings of other faiths

[_Valorius]

Till then, I will continue to "attack" error and falsehood,

Let me know when you can prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that another religion is false.

I have no intention of casting my pearls your way, Simon Belmont. I have nothing to prove, and would not waste my time trying to open a mind as sealed with arrogance as yours. I am entitled to every single, teensy, miserable opinion in my misfiring brain. I don't have to prove my beliefs. I am not even interested in "proving" them. I am satisfied knowing they are mine, and knowing I can express them without fear of some fascist control freak shutting me up because he doesn't agree with me. If the jackboot fits, wear it.

If it's proof you are interested in (and I know it is not),
then you should do the honorable thing,
prove the positive side of what you demand:
"prove beyond any reasonable doubt that another religion is" true!

If you will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Jehovah's Witnessism is true,
I will then happily prove to you beyond any reasonable doubt that it is false.
(waiting) (waiting) (waiting)

(very bored with Simon's inability to substantiate anything he says)

[_Hoops]

If they're not Christian, what category do they fall under? Is not Christian those who claim to worship the Christ?

If an institution denies the Trinity (among other things, but that's enough) they become decidedly non-christian. That is a game changer as it addresses so many other core christian doctrines.

[_stemelbow]

I have no intention of casting my pearls your way, Simon Belmont. I have nothing to prove, and would not waste my time trying to open a mind as sealed with arrogance as yours. I am entitled to every single, teensy, miserable opinion in my misfiring brain. I don't have to prove my beliefs. I am not even interested in "proving" them. I am satisfied knowing they are mine, and knowing I can express them without fear of some fascist control freak shutting me up because he doesn't agree with me. If the jackboot fits, wear it.

You have somewhere in the area of 50 posts and you act as if you are justified in your condemnation of Simon, and you go off on him, essentially, because he asked you to prove something? Simon's bad because he asked you to prove something? Oh boy. I hope you lighten up a little.

If it's proof you are interested in (and I know it is not),
then you should do the honorable thing,
prove the positive side of what you demand:
"prove beyond any reasonable doubt that another religion is" true!

For some reason what you just said here and this, " I am not even interested in "proving" them. I am satisfied knowing they are mine, and knowing I can express them without fear of some fascist control freak shutting me up because he doesn't agree with me." just don't seem to fit together...

If you will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Jehovah's Witnessism is true,
I will then happily prove to you beyond any reasonable doubt that it is false.
(waiting) (waiting) (waiting)

(very bored with Simon's inability to substantiate anything he says)

Welcome aboard. This sounds like fun to me.

[_stemelbow]

If an institution denies the Trinity (among other things, but that's enough) they become decidedly non-christian. That is a game changer as it addresses so many other core christian doctrines.

I get that as a personal opinion, but how should these groups be categorized then? If they worship the Christ, but disagree with the "main" Christian group on things like the Trinity what shall they be called?

The subjectivity on this topic is a pont of confusion, I think.

[_Simon Belmont]

If an institution denies the Trinity (among other things, but that's enough) they become decidedly non-christian. That is a game changer as it addresses so many other core christian doctrines.

No, they become non creedal-Christian.

[_rich kelsey]

And two of those are institutionally not Christian. I don't know much about SDAs

I have never called the SDA Church a cult. Personally, I think they are Christian, but they do have some off the wall teachings:

• Jesus is Michael the Archangel.
• Christians going to Church on Sunday have taken the mark of the beast and are a part of the great whore spoken of in Revelation.
• On October 22nd 1844 at Midnight Jerusalem time Jesus went to an inner room in a heavenly temple and began Investigative Judgment.

I do not believe people who are SDA are necessarily wasting their lives.

That is not why I write about the SDA Church. The SDA Church began with the same movement as the JW Church, under Miller in the 1830s.

I simply write about church history. If my articles about the JWs did not go back to the beginning of the movement under Miller my JW articles would not be complete.

I have never advised a Seventh Day Adventist church member to leave the Church. Not even close. However, they may decide to not look on their Christian Brothers as the Great Babylon for going to church on Sunday if they took a good look at their history concerning Ellen White and her teaching on that odd doctrine, stemming from her first and second vision.

If my critic would quote from my article on the SDA (Apocalypse Now) we may have something solid to talk about? All I see so far is baseless accusations!

Are these doctrines only "slightly different" let the reader be the judge.

Here is the article:

http://richkelsey.org/apocalypse_now.htm

[_Simon Belmont]

I have never called the SDA Church a cult. Personally, I think they are Christian, but they do have some off the wall teachings:

• Jesus is Michael the Archangel.
• Christians going to Church on Sunday have taken the mark of the beast and are a part of the great whore spoken of in Revelation.
• On October 22nd 1844 at Midnight Jerusalem time Jesus went to an inner room in a heavenly temple and began Investigative Judgment.

I do not believe people who are SDA are necessarily wasting their lives.

That is not why I write about the SDA Church. The SDA Church began with the same movement as the JW Church, under Miller in the 1830s.

I simply write about church history. If my articles about the JWs did not go back to the beginning of the movement under Miller my JW articles would not be complete.

I have never advised a Seventh Day Adventist church member to leave the Church. Not even close. However, they may decide to not look on their Christian Brothers as the Great Babylon for going to church on Sunday if they took a good look at their history concerning Ellen White and her teaching on that odd doctrine, stemming from her first and second vision.

If my critic would quote from my article on the SDA (Apocalypse Now) we may have something solid to talk about? All I see so far is baseless accusations!

Are these doctrines only "slightly different" let the reader be the judge.

Here is the article:

http://richkelsey.org/apocalypse_now.htm

Rich, this is Mormon Discussions.

Do you believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cult? Do you believe it "waste(s) peoples lives?"

[_Valorius]

You have somewhere in the area of 50 posts and you act as if you are justified in your condemnation of Simon, and you go off on him, essentially, because he asked you to prove something? Simon's bad because he asked you to prove something? Oh boy. I hope you lighten up a little.

Thanks, Stemelbow. I wonder if perhaps the number of posts a person has is adequate for an accurate judgement about them. Maybe it is. But you are right. I haven't spoken much. Yes, I do feel justified in my remarks.

Simon did not ask me to simply "prove" something, but to prove it "beyond any reasonable doubt". That's a give-away. I know the game. I won't play it. If a meteor landed on some people's heads, they could still claim it is not "beyond all reasonable doubt" that it was a meteor that landed on their head. :) That particular manifestation of my obstinacy is based on experience.

Welcome aboard. This sounds like fun to me.

Thank you very much. It's been a few years since I joined, I didn't post much back then, some of my beliefs have changed, but I have read a few threads here now and then over the years. I recognize a few long-timers, and see some new people, and know I look like one of the newest. :) That's okay.

I don't dialogue with most of the Simon Belmonts of the world, but got a tack under my behind with some of what's been going on recently. I know Rich a little. Harmless, honest, fair-minded, kind fellow. I didn't like seeing him unjustly castigated and hounded like he was. Maybe I'll go back to my porch now, and sip lemonade, and just watch the fireworks from there. Thanks for the welcome.

[_Valorius]

Rich, this is Mormon Discussions.

You put the JWs on a par with the Mormons. Since you accused him here of "attacking" both, he is within his rights to defend himself against your false accusation, as relates to both cults.

[_stemelbow]

Valorius, keep piping up. I'm sorry. I get carried away sometimes. my bad. But, I do think you went too far in going after Simon based on his request. Sure his request was a set up, but come on. You went a little far, no?