Sent: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:52:54 +0000Me in red.
Neville Jones wrote:When Satan tempted Jesus with some 'truth' he was quoting from the total truth (based upon your opinion) of the scriptures, not a book of astrology (though there can surely be no doubt that astrology and Sun-worship feature heavily in the scriptures), and then implying a different interpretation. You on the other hand condemn the 'total' truth as astrology but reserve the right to 'cherry-pick' the bits that you claim are the 'only' bits of truth in the book. This is a decision that you personally make and who decides what is truth and what isn't. We each do. It is our resonsibility to do so, and it seems to me that our relatively short lifespans are nevertheless adequate for doing this.Dear Jack,The hardest tale to see through is one that has a thread of truth in it. For example, imagine the Twin Towers collapse without the aeroplanes flying into them. It then would be obvious to a blind man what had happened, right? So, you make sure that there is something inserted that cannot be denied, such that you can always point to this truth to 'justify' your lies. In exactly the same way, the black book without strands of truth would be glaringly obvious as the demonic, occult tool that it is. Hence, when I try to extract the strands of truth, I am not "cherry-picking" the black book.
Your daily reading is typical of church organizations that people such as yourself chose to 'belong' to. The Jehovah's Witnesses had exactly the same type of daily devotional brain washing. The Devil is regularly thrown in to make the flock tow the party line.
You may choose to arbitrarily dismiss my example of spiritual reading but you have got to admit, that as far as the Bible is concerned, it is spot-on accurate! Why would I admit to such a thing when I am denying the black book's authority?
Imagine Neville that 20 or 30 thousand people ( all of whom were converted as a result of reading your website) were somehow able to fellowship or at least communicate on a regular basis together, you would then have got yourself a church/organization or whatever collective name you care to call it. It is not unreasonable for all those people to say that they belong to a group of like-minded adherents and maybe call themselves 'Jonesuits'. Therefore all the epithets that you have directed at mainstream Christian groupings (who in the main share exactly the same belief, I do not include the R.C's though) can also be levelled at your particular grouping should it ever materialise. We can all sling mud at each other but it will only have an effect when thrown by people at others in the same group. A Christian telling a Hindu that his belief is nonsense isn't going to change the Hindu's belief because there is no common ground between them. However, a Christians telling other Christians that they are in error do have got common ground to argue with. You have put yourself in the same category as the Hindu - you have swept away any common ground that existed between us and the bits that you have left have become meaningless.
I have previously asked you if you think that you are the only person who 'knows' this truth or do you also share it with others? This is not an unreasonable question. Your belief seems to have no real substance or foundation that can be tested by those of us that you have been trying to proselytise to since issuing this subject line 'Every duty has its own bugle call'. I never issued this subject line. I retracted a talk on Joshua's 'long day' if you remember.
Although the example you contrive of my starting a 'church' sounds okay to begin with, it actually falls apart soon thereafter, because any church is an organization which places mediators between the individual members and God. Whether they be priests, bishops, mullahs, ... I advocate a direct relationship with our Father and a drawing close to our Father by experience and reason.
Finally what do you expect to happen to you when you die. My spirit will be separated from my physical body and my physical body will immediately start to decompose. This is a very important question especially for those you may want to share your belief with. ??
I have told you this before, but I will tell you in all sincerity again, "go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'." (1st canonical gospel, 9:13a, NIV.)
As Allen has eloquently pointed out to you about this scripture, you have taken it out of context. This is understandable since you reject pretty much all of the context material that applies to it. Also I do not recall you ever explaining what you think it means.
See the remarks I made in my reply to Allen about needing a doctor. This explains the context.