Why do people pretend good things about Jesus ?

by mP 418 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  NewChapter

  So, lol? I would challenged (and mocked/ridiculed) even more if I asked and shared what I was given.

  I see. Internet debate----okay to be mocked/ridiculed. Slavery---not worth it.

  This grows more interesting.

  In fact, you could have gone to your lord to check your behavior, got your answer, and kept it to yourself. But you chose to share it---not for any good reasons either---simply to add weight to your position of nonaction when someone said dreadful things to another person. If you were doing right---there was no reason to share that tidbit. It did not teach anyone anything (except that you were right), and it did not shine any special light on Jesus (other than he sided with you).

  But when it comes to slavery, you are not willing to be a bit uncomfortable.

  As I said before and continue to say, Jesus is defined however a person wishes to define him, and is shaped by current culture etc. Nothing written about him is accepted 100% leaving a lot of room to play. When direct answers are asked, vague answers are given. Even his own followers are not interested in clearing things up (except internet debates).

  Always interesting.

  NC
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  But in reality that argument doesn't make sense because gods would not be able to be well understood.

  I will accept that as an argument as soon as you can produce a god for all of us to see and verify that statement.

  In any event, it's interesting that you claims gods would be able to be well understood, yet you claim to understand them.

  We need more people who have a mustard seed of faith, but you seek to squish it with reason.

  Careful, you are starting to try to claim you know what I am doing again, and you are getting it wrong.

  I ask you: what collection of ideas about God are valid?

  Valid for what? Cake recipes? Cleaning septic tanks?

  Or do you operate on the notion that there may come a day when someone can prove gods to you?

  Of course God could somehow reveal himself.

  Because if that were the truth then you would be an agnostic, not an atheist.

  Of course not, kiddo. I don't believe that any spirit worlds or gods exists, not that they do and are unknowable. Subject to new facts and evidence, I can update what I think. That's not agnostic.
• 

  tec

  I think I've done it, unless you just want to block what anyone with open eyes can see clearly.

  There you go with that 'thinking you know me' thing again ;)

  You cannot overcome the FACT that your own Holy Book PROVES that your God permits (and even demands, at times) the practice of slavery; Jesus followed YHWH's law, since HE KNEW that the torah endorses slavery.

  You are just stating the same thing over and over again... never mind what I shared regarding the scribes, or the law, or the allowances made for the people who were unwilling to do any better...

  Besides all of that... I see God, through Christ. I also recognize the difference between the Holy Spirit... and the bible. The Holy Spirit trumps the bible any day of the week (or millenium) ;)

  And no, you don't have to believe anything at all. It just seems funny that you spend so much time fighting belief in a Christ of love, mercy, forgiveness, turn the other cheek, peace, etc.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  It just seems funny that you spend so much time fighting belief in a Christ of love, mercy, forgiveness, turn the other cheek, peace, etc.

  Why is that funny?
• 

  tec

  I see. Internet debate----okay to be mocked/ridiculed. Slavery---not worth it.

  There you go with the twisting thing again.

  I never said I would not share out of fear/irritation over being mocked/ridiculed. I said, 'so what if I am being challenged?'

  I would be challenged either way, and you know it.

  This grows more interesting.

  You think?

  I think it is the same old/same old.

  In fact, you could have gone to your lord to check your behavior, got your answer, and kept it to yourself. But you chose to share it---not for any good reasons either---simply to add weight to your position of nonaction when someone said dreadful things to another person. If you were doing right---there was no reason to share that tidbit. It did not teach anyone anything (except that you were right), and it did not shine any special light on Jesus (other than he sided with you).

  No, it was to show that i did examine myself. And cared enough of what others were trying to say (but that I did not see, myself) to ask for some guidance.

  I know that what I shared was misunderstood, and I had written a post clarifying... but the thread was locked as I tried to post, and i lost that response.

  But when it comes to slavery, you are not willing to be a bit uncomfortable.

  Once again, has nothing to do with that. Not in the least. So all that you have to say that based upon this mistaken conclusion... is based on just that: a mistaken conclusion.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  Why is that funny?

  They just don't seem like traits a person would want to fight against. If faith in Christ leads a person to try and do/show those things, then why spend your time trying to convince them otherwise?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  You truly have carefully crafted a little bubble. You pick the pieces of everything that support that bubble, and won't touch that which could break it. It is like a caccoon that protects you from so much reality. I have seen it grow even stronger. I am glad I no longer believe.
• 

  King Solomon

  They just don't seem like traits a person would want to fight against. If faith in Christ leads a person to try and do/show those things, then why spend your time trying to convince them otherwise?

  Ironic, since it's your belief system that has been used to justify slavery, genocide, child abuse, etc, etc. EVEN TO THIS DAY.

  That's not MY belief system, but your's, all yours, Tams. The moral blood guilt is on YOUR hands, not mine...
• 

  NewChapter

  They just don't seem like traits a person would want to fight against. If faith in Christ leads a person to try and do/show those things, then why spend your time trying to convince them otherwise?

  We don't agree with your bubblegum interpretation of Christ. Just because you say he is all warm and good, does not mean that is how people understand this christ. You are able to construct whatever you want----but that is not so for everyone. Santa Claus is a lovable character too---but does that mean we should not speak the truth about him when appropriate.

  And what would you recommend Sol, or any of us actually do? Just sit here and say nothing? Cuz it's a nice (not really) story? Obviously we believe we have gained a great deal by stepping outside of our bubbles--something you cannot comprehend yet. But we had our own bubbles once--and we are better off without them.

  NC
• 

  sabastious

  yet you claim to understand them.

  My only claims that goes beyond my own opinion is that gods exist and that we have a Creator. I believe in a First Intelligence (highest God) that will eventually be explained by quantum physics.

  Careful, you are starting to try to claim you know what I am doing again, and you are getting it wrong.

  I don't believe you are qualified to say what you know about yourself because you don't believe you have a purpose. You can't tell me what you are because you don't know. You can tell me where you came from and how you formed, but you can't truthfully tell me who you are. You can only tell me what you believe to be the truth. You can only identify properties of your existence and cannot actually prove that you do indeed exist. Technically neither can I, but we both have opinions on what we are. But our explanations for our existence are at odds and therefore we cannot both be right. "There is not enough evidence for gods" does not equate to "there are no gods." They may be hiding on purpose, for example.

  Of course God could somehow reveal himself.

  If this was done God would also come with a perfect logical explanation for his existence all throughout history which exists now without detection by us. Since no one yet has disproved the existence of God, would there not be some theory out there that is actually right all along, but lacks evidence. Therefore, would we not then collect all theories that specifically do NOT have evidence? By identifying what evidence is needed we can then go and seek out that evidence.

  Of course not, kiddo. I don't believe that any spirit worlds or gods exists, not that they do and are unknowable. Subject to new facts and evidence, I can update what I think. That's not agnostic.

  But, if you admit that you could know everything when it's presented to you doesn't that mean that you are just currently ignorant to the truth? Why say there is no God(s) when you do not have the reason to? Believing in God doesn't make anything about you change it's just a belief. If anything it just strengthens your reserve especially in times of turmoil. Do you honestly believe that you have considered ALL of the factors of ALL religions that have data that is available? Are you litterally are at the "need more data" phase? Because I have a hard time believing that. There must be factors you have not considered, but are available for consideration. You are not perfect.

  -Sab