Christians please answer something for me (page 5)

tootired2care

I suspect that John Mann is engaged in a bit of sattire.

DJS

Yeah, I thought John Mann might be channeling the Rev. But on this site I've learned to never assume. John, if you are a satirist my hat is off to you. Well done!

John_Mann

I was a born again christian (during 4 weeks) after my exit from WT.

But I can wear my rusty christian armor and my big shiny faith shield sometimes.

But don't take my speech as a sattire, christians really believe and "think" in this way.

It's useless to discuss with people like that, they don't want know about anything and just want some huge attention due to the lack of attention from their GOOOOD. It's an interesting state of conscience just like a synthetic LSD. You really feel special and confident when you act like a born again christian zealot. Christians are addicted to this brain sensation and can't do nothing to stop it. It's creepy when you think people with power in hands are addicted to this stuff.

Saved_JW

1. Making sure the proper pronunciation of his name is not available

This is one of the fallacious arguments that the Jehovah's Witnesses make, insisting on a specific "sound wave" for Gods literal name. What they are doing is imposing an american idea of names on the scriptures themselves. In all reality, this is not how the Jewish culture operated.

When moses was speaking to God on Mt. Saini, he asked God "Who should I say sent me?" God replied not with a literal name, but instead, with his attribute or character of his being. He said "I AM who I AM, say this to the people of Israel, I AM has sent me to you"

The attribute of God in calling himself "I AM" means I am what I will purpose to be. In that culture a name defined your attribute or character. For example the Egyptian gods had names cooresponding to thier specific geographical region and attribute. [god of fertility, god of the nile, god of the sun etc..] What the God of Israel was declaring was that He was the Creator God.

So when the Israelites were saved from the Red sea, they literally called out the name of God according to his attribute. They would say The Lord of Salvation, when it came time for the Sabbath, they would call out Gods name; the Lord of Rest. so on and so fourth.

The hebrew people understood this, they understood that there was no "Single Name" that could identify God, since he had many attributes to his character, you could not put God in a box. This is why they used 4 characters YHWH [which cannot be pronounced] to identify as a symbol of God.

The Jehovah's Witnesses error by trying to turn this symbol into a literal name of God, which is not its purpose. The name Jehovah comes from a combonation of YHWH and Adoni [which means Lord]

Its almost superstitous on the Jw's part to think of the name "Jehovah" as almost like a talisman. As if you say the literal name Jehovah, God will perk his ears a little closer to your ears.

2. That all his teaching are not preserved in an easy to discern manner so that ther is no confusion.

The purpose of the OT was to point you to the messiah, the NT reveals the messiah thus giving the individual a basis for Faith in Jesus. The argumentation here assumes that we must have an exhaustive list of every saying of Jesus in order to have an accurate knowledge of Him. This is not the case.
When it comes to Salvation, Jesus laid it out quite simply by saying this:

[John 8:47] "Whoever is of God hears the words of God. the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

Scriptures testify of Jesus, belief starts with God, we respond in faith.
Yet again this contradicts the Watchtowers view that KNOWLEDGE is the starting point for faith. If we use Watchtower presuppositions, I can fully understand why you would draw this conclusion and not understand why we dont have more "knowledge" of the scriptures.

3. Made hs presence evident to a small group of people in the middle east and pretty much gave a giant fuck you to the rest of civilization of thousands of years

this is an argument from silence. What makes you think he didnt? The only way to substantiate this assertion is to insist you have exhaustive knowledge on the middle east and other areas throughout history to declare he didnt reveal himself to individuals.

4. Allows people to suffer and will not help

Ok this one I might need a clarification on your point of view a little more. here you are making an ethical judgment against God, however I do not understand which ethical standard you are judging him from?

Suffering = Bad

you need to substantiate

1) Why suffering is bad

2) What ethical standard do you make judgments from?

3) [Implied] Why God allowing suffering makes him unethical

EndofMysteries

As God created the world and life, he was also creating and dividing good and evil. Without a seperation there is chaos. If you look deeper into the creation account in Genesis and read it in interlinear, it's not just a physical description of creating planet earth but also of sorting out good and evil, light and darkness, creating order out of chaos.

Now God wants us to be able to live forever and have free will. However he doesn't want to give immortality to evil creatures.

If God laid out in just a book of commands what you must do to live forever, an evil person could pass the test, they could refrain, then once immortal they can do damage depending on what God's plan is for those who get immortality.

One thing I haven't quite figured out fully, is in revelation and other books they do speak of those who are resurrected are then judged based on what they did during their life. As of now I presume that nobody is sinless, so Jesus sacrifice covers those who are actually good, and those who are actually evil are history.

The WT teaches that anybody who is dead, gets a 2nd chance except those alive during the GT, they teach the scrolls opened and people judged are a new bible and new teachings, but I think those scrolls are a record of their life choices.

Not knowing and having a clear idea of what to do, and especially those who believe there is no God nor accountability, will show their true colors. Some good, some bad, etc.

cofty

you need to substantiate 1) Why suffering is bad - saved _JW

Go and ask somebody to kick you really hard in the balls and then get back to me about that.

jeff spreng

I agree and feel the same. But the alternative is also quite disturbing.

Saved_JW

Go and ask somebody to kick you really hard in the balls and then get back to me about that.

Sure I might have a feeling of discomfort and pain, that's quite a different thing from labeling the physical effects of my discomfort from being ethically good or bad. Some people enjoy pain and even consider it a fettish.

There needs to be a absolute grounding for the truth claim being made [Suffering = Bad]

cofty

that's quite a different thing from labeling the physical effects of my discomfort from being ethically good or bad

You have switched the question.

If somebody enjoys suffering they are mentally ill and we can safely dismiss their opinions.

There needs to be a absolute grounding for the truth claim being made [Suffering = Bad]

Says who?

Saved_JW

You have switched the question.

If somebody enjoys suffering they are mentally ill and we can safely dismiss their opinions.

well thats your opinion, lol

"There needs to be a absolute grounding for the truth claim being made [Suffering = Bad]"

Says who?

Well this was the original objection to God. The orignial question on the thread was: 4- [Why God] Allows people to suffer and will not help

This was the moral objection to God. My reply is simple, on what basis is suffering morally "bad"?

Cofty, your standard seems to be pain=wrong, however this cannot ALWAYS be true since not everybody believes that to be the case, many people love pain and consider it a fettish. Your simple dismissal of this by labeling them as "Mentally ill" [hmm sounds like something the watchtower would say] :) Hardly proves your case that your standard MUST be always true. In fact it isnt.

The rason why there must be an absolute standard is because relative standards will not be able to hold so called "Unethical actions of God" as truly being wrong. because after all, Gods actions are relatively good. Thats the point.

Christians please answer something for me

Share this