rjw63 Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 More a case of previous defectors from the camp having a go, really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 OK - so I haven't looked at this thread for a while cos I just thought it was a debate about some cult. Now it is up at 30 odd pages. Am I right in thinking that somehow word has got back to wherever that some chaps were taking the piss, and that the troops have rallied in force? It's just I can't be bothered to read all of the pages. Ta. Yes, really. But I think it is termed 'visiting with' rather than 'rallying in force'. :winkold: Worth a read but obviously only if you've got the time to spare. Do not put anything worthwhile in your life off in order to read it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlitobrigante Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 unbelievable, the day villa talk got invaded by mad amercian cultists, who proceeded to then argue amongst themselves... classic thread. how can any thread ever top this?!? might as well cancel the internet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy_loes Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Terry - Do you accept, as it is widely, that great swathes of the Bible (James1 version) are pure fiction, written by priests on instruction for the purposes of fear and rule? I am a christian and occasionally attend Church of England services. Terry - Why did you not answer my question ?? Hi Billy, Bible translations are not much of an issue to me. Men read their favorite version of the bible, but they do not hear the voice of God in their soul. The bible to them has become a dead letter, for they do not want to obey it anyway (Thou shalt not kill, Remember the Sabbath day). If a man was stranded on a desert island with no bible of any kind, he could still read the Word in the sunset and hear Father in the “still small voice”. I hear God speak in a nursery rhyme and in the call of the coyote echoing through the canyon. I also hear Him in the “pure fiction” that you refer to. The real question is; do you hear God saying “This is my beloved son (Michael) in whom I am well pleased.”? Can you read, understand, and accept that Travesser is the long awaited for return of Christ? This is the living Word, can you hear it? Very nice rhetoric and in essence I think I can go along with you. Other than the exclusivity - “This is my beloved son (Michael) I would say "all of us" rather than just Michael. Unfortunately the bible has some 'add ons', some of which verge on the comical, i.e - whats wrong with eating seafood? (specifically shellfish) When you quote verses from Revelations it dulls your argument somewhat. By the way do you like Football? it happens to be God 's own game Hope you're having a great Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Can't believed I missed the God-squad invasion - could have been fun. Don't suppose Laughing Gravity (ad hominem!!!) returned??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Dear Pad (Brillo), It is a shame that you lacked the courtesy to reply to my questions about the insult and the single post when you returned to the site last night. I guess you lack any ounce of decency. Ah well, I really hope your personality is not as abrasive as your monicker implies and that someone somewhere loves you (on this earth rather than off/beyond it). This thread has been rather surreal and for the most part quite enjoyable but back to reality and the important stuff - must get ready to take in the Chelsea game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrilloPad Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Dear SnowycHap, you were quite correct in your assessment of my post. I must grant you the high ground in this, and apologize for my unwarrented abrasiveness and lack of courtesy. Thank you for sharing your observations with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beth Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Hello all. I am a member of the Strong City "cult," and I am not here to keep posting, as I see this thread has reached its natural end. I just want to add a postscript, to clear up somethng that has come up in a number of posts, and set the record straight. It was assumed a number of times that Michael had sexual relations with other men's wives, or with women that were not his wife. Prudence stated that they got divorces after the fact. Here is the truth. The women involved all divorced their previous husbands before they were joined to Michael. All had separated from their previous husbands, with the understanding that it was a divorce and it was final, some time beforehand. This was by mutual and amicable agreement all the way around. The legal transactions involving the state may not have been completed until afterwards, but in every case these agreements were made before God, and we recognize Him as the authority over our affairs, not the state. Also, these acts of intimacy were not outside of marriage, but were in fact what married them. The purpose for this marriage was not what the marriages of earth are contracted for. The Father in heaven ordained it as a "visual aid" to lift up before the earth the Marriage of the Lamb, the second coming of Christ, when He comes to take his Bride. But the angry mob assume many things, and only see a criminal, a pervert, and a wrong act. Look closely now, and you will see the perfect parallel with the first coming of Christ. Jesus' crucifixion on a cross was ordained by the Father. It was not done for the same purpose that crucifixions were commonly done in that day -- to get rid of a criminal. But just as now, the angry mob could only see it that way. They saw Jesus as a criminal. But in truth, it was done to portray to the world the reality of the Sacrifice Lamb. In both, at the first coming and now at the second, the Father was saying, "Behold the Lamb of God." But as with the cross, so with the marriage -- only eyes that see, and a heart that believes, will receive it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldFart Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Enjoy the match Beth? EDIT: Nothing really, just felt I had to go back and edit some of my posts in case I'd said anything I might regret. But apparently not. Waste of time then really wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldFart Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 The. Match. Wigan Athletic v Aston Villa. Soccer. Round ball. Goal with nets and that. EDIT: Nothing really, just felt I had to go back and edit some of my posts in case I'd said anything I might regret. But apparently not. Waste of time then really wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Enjoy the match Beth? OF, they don't do entertainment! Although, sometimes, neither do Villa. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldFart Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Yeah, true... :oops: :wink: EDIT: Nothing really, just felt I had to go back and edit some of my posts in case I'd said anything i might regret. but apparently not. Waste of time then really wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 But the angry mob assume many things, and only see a criminal, a pervert, and a wrong act. I'm just jealous :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkyII Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 The women involved all divorced their previous husbands before they were joined to Michael Were the reasons for these divorces Biblical? I understand that short of adultry if a divorce occurs, they are not to be remarried and if they are, themselves and who they marry are commiting adultry. (reads an adulturing messiah) The legal transactions involving the state may not have been completed until afterwards, but in every case these agreements were made before God, and we recognize Him as the authority over our affairs, not the state. If the state does not have authority over your affairs, why bother with the legal transactions then? Im curious, how does the following verse relate to your not recognizing the state having authority over you? Ro 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Additionally, if legal transactions were performed to obtain the divorces, were legal transactions performed to obtain new marriage liscences(s) by Michael? (ignoring the fact that one can only have one wife in the U.S.) I would venture to say that a messiah would be consistant. Finally, do you find in the Bible where Jesus would be walking the earth, living among the people when he comes back? (or is there indication of the opposite?) P.S. Do you have any knowledge of anyone there having been in another cult before coming to strong city? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villadude Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 That's put the cat amongst the pigeons............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryCzap Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Sparky, Do you already have some background on the group in question? Do you live in the U.S.? Would I be correct to conclude you are an SDA or have been one in the past? Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Woo, more intrigue. What's an SDA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryCzap Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 SDA is short for Seventh Day Adventis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendelc Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 SDA--- Stupid Deluded American Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b23avfc Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 You don't need to be an SDA (er) to know that divorce is only lawful in God's eyes on the basis of adultery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts