- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@ghost-of-a-duke saidA W Tozar should be A W Tozer.
Witness Lee sought to throw the Christian baby out with the bathwater and replace it with a 4 in one deity.
He wrote "The Waning Authority of Christ in the Churches".
Ghost-of-a-Duke recommended him as a Christian teacher.
Witness Lee referred to his sermons on this a number of times as an example of a teacher speaking a frank and honest word about Christianity.
Ie in Christ Verses Religion Witness Lee said this:
Dr. A. W. Tozer of recent years wrote an article shortly before his death in which the main point was this: Christianity today has its conferences in which they discuss Christian service, missionary endeavor, and so forth. But suppose Christ Himself should enter their conference room. They would ask Him, “Who are You?” So wrote the famous minister of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, A. W. Tozer. This is today's Christianity, and this is not my word, but his.
In Life Study of Ezekiel Lee said:
Dr. A. W. Tozer of the Christian and Missionary Alliance once said that if the Lord Jesus came into a conference of Christian leaders, they would not recognize Him. Although they might be discussing their work for the Lord, if He were to come into their meeting, they would not know Him. Tozer's observation indicates that it is common for Christians to love many things other than the Lord Himself.
By using the Search Engine at www.minstrybooks.org one can locate all the instances in the online publications by Witness Lee where he referred to A. W. Tozer. I simply selected the first two.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29788
16 Apr 21
@sonship saidNo, I didn't. I may have quoted him once, but even that quote is long forgotten. How do you mean 'recommended?
A W Tozar should be A W Tozer.
He wrote "The Waning Authority of Christ in the Churches".
Ghost-of-a-Duke recommended him as a Christian teacher.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou recommended Tozer as someone worthy to pay attention as to what he said.
No, I didn't. I may have quoted him once, but even that quote is long forgotten. How do you mean 'recommended?
Back peddling now is too late.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Ghost we have some dear folks over here in the US who are still insisting that the presidential election was won by Mr. Trump and it was unfairly stolen from him.
Your talents in keeping conspiracy theories alive might be useful to them.
I think you could probably make yourself some money employing your talents for keeping alive stubborn conspiracy theories.
Matthew 5...
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
I don't call myself a christian, but I like this bit.
Rajk999 - I apologise without reserve. You said a thing I didn't like and I replied with malicious intent, and that was wrong of me.
Sonship - I recently made a rather judgemental post about you which was motivated more by my injured pride than any other cause. I apologise for this, it was wrong of me.
@avalanchethecat saidWhat you are talking about? Whatever it is explain later. Right now here is an important point. Here you are an atheists reading the teachings of Christ, agreeing with it, putting it into practice. I would say you are closer to being Christlike than many Christians. Christians often read the teachings of Christ and cast it aside, giving elaborate reasons and quoted the very same bible to discredit Christ.
Matthew 5...
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to ...[text shortened]... serve. You said a thing I didn't like and I replied with malicious intent, and that was wrong of me.
Whatever it is you said, I can tell you that Im not easily offended. Think nothing of it.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29788
16 Apr 21
@sonship saidWell, taking a trick from your book, please evidence that?
You recommended Tozer as someone worthy to pay attention as to what he said.
Back peddling now is too late.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29788
16 Apr 21
@sonship saidThat Witness Lee is a fraud is no conspiracy.
Ghost we have some dear folks over here in the US who are still insisting that the presidential election was won by Mr. Trump and it was unfairly stolen from him.
Your talents in keeping conspiracy theories alive might be useful to them.
I think you could probably make yourself some money employing your talents for keeping alive stubborn conspiracy theories.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
That Witness Lee is a fraud is no conspiracy.
No, Witness Lee was the genuine thing - a man sent by God given to Christ's church. (Eph. 4:11)
By their fruits you will know them.
Anyway this brother left us in 1997.
Some people said the local churches would collapse once he died.
Its 2021 and the churches are spreading and growing.
You see, try as you may, Lee was not the official leader of the local churches.
He was just a faithful slave of God and servant to all the saints.
This thread was on the Guidance on the big questions offered by atheists.
And I haven't seen much guidance on the big questions of life.
I'm going to stick with Christ.
19 Apr 21
sonship,
You asked me to answer two questions. Here they are:
On what basis did the nations have any right to conduct the Nuremberg trials against the former Nazis?
What gave other communities the authority to pass judgment on the Nazis that their community committed crimes against humanity?
And I answered them.
So, now, I am asking you.
What is YOUR answer to those two questions?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Apr 21
1 edit
@FMF
Yes, I am aware that your reply to the Nuremberg question is on the thread, as you mentioned before. I'll probably see it today.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Apr 21
2 edits
The basis was international law which in turn was based on what was arguably the moral consensus of the people of the nations that beat the Nazis in WW2.
Suppose the Nazis had won the war. Suppose the Allied forces all came under Hitler's rule. Suppose they had adopted wholesale then Nazi philosophy.
Would the consensus of the nations conquered by the Germans have a legitimate basis to judge the behavior of the losers?
Would their judgments have been morally right?
@sonship saidNot according to my moral compass, no. Thanks for the additional question, which I have now answered.
Suppose the Nazis had won the war. Suppose the Allied forces all came under Hitler's rule. Suppose they had adopted wholesale then Nazi philosophy.
Would the consensus of the nations conquered by the Germans have a legitimate basis to judge the behavior of the losers?
Would their judgments have been morally right?
So, I'll try again - I think it's for the seventh time - these are questions you asked me and I answered, and now I am asking you:
[1] On what basis did the nations have any right to conduct the Nuremberg trials against the former Nazis? [2] What gave other communities the authority to pass judgment on the Nazis that their community committed crimes against humanity?