True, or FAlse? (page 6)

SolidSender

.

Edited by - SolidSender on 10 August 2000 4:2:17

waiting

Hwy Zep,

You seem to be subtly defending them most times, like your a real believer. On the blood issue though, your different, your quit forthright that the society is wrong there...

That is my impression also. Frankly, I agree with Kismet's statement about Friend. Just gotta stick to the issue at hand and tightly qualify your statements.

SS is never going to be able to live down learnet vs learned gross misapplication. In my humble opinion.

Glad to see your post.

waiting

Friend

Zep

how do you really see your society and its major docrines like 1914 and the whole revelation bit,

The gentile times chronology is idiotic and untenable. Whether we live in a so-called time of the end is another discussion. On that question I think that it is possible that Jesus was referring to an end time beyond the 1st century destruction of Jerusalem. If it is true that Jesus did have a more futuristic application in mind then the question becomes, have we seen any unique fulfillment of his answer for a sign in our day. I think the answer to that question is, perhaps. Here is [url= http://www.hourglass2.org/wwwboard/messages/184722.html]a link[/url] to a start to that discussion, if you want to have it.

Regarding revelation, I do not know just what you have in mind. If you have in mind the Society’s notion that they are uniquely bestowed with understanding of the Bible, I do not agree with the Society’s contention on that point. I do not think they are any more or less inspired than any other person who might want to live right as a Christian according to the Bible.

and DFing, its history etc,

The idea of shunning is scriptural. As for the Society’s shunning practices, I do not agree with them all. Particularly do I disagree with the certain features of the congregational judicial process. For one thing, anyone invited to a judicial hearing should be able to have along with them someone to listen in, someone of their choosing. That one step alone would negate many potential abuses.

what makes you stick with them?

They have a very strong drive to reach people with the Bible. I like that, and I enjoy having company that sticks with me as I too continue to reach as many people with the Bible as possible.

are they the Truth or what in your eye?.

“The Truth” as in the only way to gain salvation? No. “The truth” in terms of being the only source of understanding scripture? No. “The truth” in terms of complete accuracy? Most certainly, No.

How do you see opposers of the WT, who have them labelled a high control "cult" ???????????

Many of them are genuine and I respect and encourage them according to the correctness of their grievances. Some of them are quacks and I do not waste my time with them.

SolidSender

Friend: you want an example – yea sure not a problem.

We will see if it is a problem or not, won’t we?

To begin, if you don’t mind, I want to make sure that the following details are correct and that we are both dealing with exactly the same example.
Could please inform me if I have any misunderstanding in view of the following:

You said you could produce evidence of your accusation at will. Do you now need my help?

Re: Your Question 1: Yes, you got that one right.

Re: Your Question 2: I have not accused Kismet of extremism, anecdotal or otherwise.

It is one thing to say someone used an incident of extremism and quite another thing to accuse them of anecdotal extremism. Need I spell that difference out for you? I can always retrieve a crayon and draw a picture, if you need it. If you pursue an assertion that I have somehow accused Kismet of extremism then you will be arguing a straw man.

Re: Your Question 3: Yes, those words of mine represent a more tenable scenario based upon the norm. So what?

Okay, I’ve helped you out by answering your questions. Now, where is the example of my postulating and/or projecting highly subjective opinion as absolute objective fact?

We are waiting… but, take your time. We all realize, considering the super abundance of examples at your disposal, that it will surely be difficult to pick just the right one.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 25 July 2000 11:7:49

Seven

waiting, Whether or not Friend is a society man that holds the WTS in high esteem is irrelevant, IMO. I feel the man just loves a good debate or in our situation here-a good argument. Unless there is a declared winner by an impartial judge, there is no debate. It is most exhilarating at the conclusion of a final rebuttal to step away from the podium and to confidently walk past your opponent and return to your seat. Can you say total obliteration, annihilation, and decimation, boys and girls?-Mr. RogersWinning is everything-participating means nothing. Maybe this is what he's into. I could be wrong, I never made it past a quarter-final.

7

Friend

SevenofNine & waiting

You two are so precious. One thing I like about anonymous participation is the greater freedom to express and subsequently hear perceptions and ideas. We all need a mirror like that to see ourselves as others do. It pays dividends to have someone construct such a mirror. Thanks for providing yet another one here and for looking at and sharing your impressions of me, both of you.

As for me, I will argue with those who want to argue, if I have the time, the inclination and the subject is important enough to me. I also like swapping views, whether those views are conclusive or not. Sometimes dumb ideas breed brilliant ideas. On arguing, I do get frustrated when persons do not comprehend a fallacious approach, but then at some point in time that was true of us all. Therefore, in the end, my arguing intends to determine validity (or not) of various views. Even the Bible advises that we test utterances, and arguing is one good way of doing that. If our testing helps others, well, that is fine, regardless, each person owes it to themselves to resolve important issues facing them and then choose an according course of action.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 25 July 2000 10:55:14

Friend

Double post deleted by - Friend

Edited by - Friend on 25 July 2000 10:57:10

Zep

On arguing, I do get frustrated when persons do not comprehend a fallacious approach, but then at some point in time that was true of us all.

Your right, that happens with everyone Friend, its the nature of MSG boards.Its not like talking to someone in person, where you can quickly correct mis-conceptions etc.Its too easy to go off on tangents on these boards and get lost in an argument to the point where the original argument is forgotten.The only way to get around it, i find, is to let things sit for a day or two and write an essay to express your views....but its hard to find the time to do that and by the time your done it the whole mood of BB has changed and a new topic is up and your just left behind sucking your thumb.This is kinda the way i feel now, i want to reply to above post about the sign and all...but its just such a huge topic, i find Mat24 luke 21 & Mark13 a real headache and not straightforward at all.I get the impression from reading them, that the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world are are intrinsically linked, but i dont want to accuse JC of being a false prophet or the Bible of being a fraud, dont like the idea.They are just very confusing chpters to me and i just haven't resolved them in my mind to my satisfaction.
On shunning, i put up the link of an interesting article, it raised some valid points, you might want to take a look...should be under Articles and commentaries at www.xjw.com.I dont think the Dub line on shunning is human or justifiable biblically really...but if it is biblical, then i just cant accept the bible...simple as that.
As for JW just pushing the bible, well, i'd have no problem if they just came to the door selling the bible itself, but they are doing more than that, they're pushing a particular interpretation as Truth... a biased interpretation that i cant accept, let alone push to others. For me to accept them they are going to have to let go of a lot of that dogmatism they have on certain issues and allow people to freely express views and opinions on a wider range of biblical matters.They can still have their core tenets or dogmatic truths like, the resurrection, the holy trinity is bogus etc...but on things like the end of the world they should be very careful, as too with blood and shunning...There should be a freer range of expression on these issues, an open dialogue between members and others. People, when they come to your door shouldn't have to parrot what the FDS say on everything all the time....its annoying. Talking to people who don't have many ideas of their own is very dull.

SolidSender

.

Edited by - SolidSender on 10 August 2000 4:2:50

Zep

i find Mat24 luke 21 & Mark13 a real headache and not straightforward at all.I get the impression from reading them, that the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world
Zep: I’ll hazard a guess and say that the greatest biblical scholars of all time have faced a similar dilemma.

Did you ever resolve it Solid?, your Christian arn't you?.I'm reading too much atheistic stuff lately...i'm reading at moment the 'Riddle of the dead sea scrolls'...dealing with Barbara Thering's ideas on the Qumram sect and Christianity and pesher writing in the Gospel and all that stuff. You might
remember her, she caused a big sh't stir back 1990 with her ideas when her documentary when to air on the ABC, caused the church & christians to get all outraged.
Man, If anything has Pesher techique(hidden meanings) its MAT 24, i cant make any real sense of it otherwise....but then again, i sure cant understand all the double meanings Dubs come up with in relation to it either.'Confusing' is the word to use no doubt, when you read "the Sign".

Seven

Zep, A short critique of Barbara:
[url] http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/448.asp[/url]

True, or FAlse?

Share this