Questions for Jgnat

by Shining One 151 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

tetrapod.sapien

rex,
Hi Tetrapodal,
You are amusing to yourself, aren't you?
yes. thank you for asking.
what church do you belong to?
The church of Jesus Christ, He is my Lord and savior.
so, is that actually the name of your church? i did a google search, and apart from all the LDS sites, this was the first one to come up:
http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/sacred_heart_elvis.html
>do you think that if i died tomorrow, i would go to hell?
It doesn't matter what I think. A more pertinent question would be this: do you think you would go to hell if you died tomorrow?
no, i don't. but please don't evade the question. if i said yes, would you have to agree? do you think jesus thinks i should? and, i'm sorry, but i have not even asked you if you beleive in hell. do you? and if so, is it a place here on earth (or in the earth), or in another dimension?
>do you think that it is okay to lie if it means defending the glory of christ?
Don't play games with logical traps and 'catch 22' questions. You are trying to define 'lying' as 'apologetics' and I will not fall for it!
yes, i think apologetics is a lie, but i did not mean it that way. i don't know if you were ever a witnoid or not, but the society uses this thing called theocratic warfare, that basically says that if it is fo the furtherance of gods kingdom and his will, it's okay to lie. do you hold to a version of this too?
>do you dig catholics?
I can take some or leave some.
i like the nuns. actually, any chick that wears a cross, i like.
>how do you explain body hair?
how do you explain DNA as it relates to genomes?
it was a simple question, and yet your answer is facetious and disingenuous because you don't know what you're talking about. i will answer your question in the manner i would like you to answer mine:
DNA relates to the genome in that it is DNA that comprises the larger program that we call the genome for practical purposes.
my question wants to know how you explain vestigial features on the human, if we are created. please start with body hair.
>did jesus tell you to come here to JWD and try to help?
I try to be obedient to the will of God in my life. It may be here and it may not be, depending on how much I 'abide on the vine'. See John 15 and maybe you will gain some insight.
so then, you do consider it part of god's will that you be here, even if it is just for a time?
i have read John 15 many times in my life. when i was a witness, it made me feel closer to jesus (which is dangerous for a witness), but now i am unimpressed with it. however, after reading it, i am curious to know if you consider jesus and the father as one, or if they are to beings apart, with different wills. verse 2 gives me the impression that they are apart, as if they were one, i don't see why jesus would be self correcting himself. also regarding vs. 17, my question to you rex is: Do you love me?
>do you pray for me?
Specifically you? I am not sure but I will do so now. I have prayed for those who say they do not believe in God.
really? cool. i let you know if anything happens.
>and don't lie. jesus is watching you rex. but i am sure he wants you to answer the questions, i can feel it in my heart.
God is not one to be mocked. You do so at your own peril.....
would you mind if i mocked Buddha or Allah? please advise.
but you must understand, for me it is like mocking anything that people do not believe in, like jack and the beanstalk. you must at least admit that jesus or god (?) would not punish me for mocking them considering that they have given me no evidence for their existence?
TS
jgnat

OK, I think we need to get some basic things out of the way before I continue.
Rex/"Shining One"
1. On what basis have you determined that the bible is factual (your general assessment)? Is it by faith or some other means?
2. I have consistently criticized defending the bible as infallible. I have consistently used the word infallible. Do you believe the bible is infallible? Scripture reference please.
3. You claim the requirement to wear a head covering is a strawman argument, yet you say that the entire bible must be obeyed as written. I want to explore this further, I can come up with other examples. and I am even willing to limit them to the New Testament.
a) Is the command to wear a headpiece a "weak" argument? Why?
b) What determines which commands are mandatory, and which are discretionary?
c) By what criteria have you decided that the head covering is evidence of cult-like obedience, yet other bible requirements are mandatory?
d) Is it "independent thinking" to chose to ignore certain bible commands?
e) How do you justify your inconsistency?
4. Don't bother bringing up other thinkers, lines of thought, or apologist arguments. I haven't read any of them. My thoughts and arguments are entirely my own.
5. I won't entertain any more threats about my eligibility to preach Christ. I consider my example to be very beneficial to the readers here, some of whom believe you are the only brand of Christian avialable.
Daunt, I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you:
When I read this my head just started hurting and I couldn't read anymore. You do not have to ascribe to a whole of something just because you agree with a part. That's way too black and white.
Rex/"Shining One" I don't see how your version of REAL CHRISTIANITY is any less flawed than the JW version of REAL CHRISTIANITY. I maintain my first conclusion that you have elevated the bible to god status, since you claim I cannot be a REAL CHRISTIAN without slavishly following every word in the bible.
Now for a freebie, "Shining One". This is likely the toughest part of my argument, because I have not thought it through completely. I just know in my gut it is wrong. Here's an analogy:
A small group of people have concluded, without a doubt, that peanut butter causes incurable cancer. They have dedicated their lives to eradicate peanut butter. Since this is a life-or-death matter, they are very passionate about their cause. They produce leaflets, campaign the removal of peanut butter from nursing homes and hospitals, and engage in lengthy debates with scientists who dispute their conclusion. They take to breaking in to cancer wards to reach the patients direct with this life-saving information. Any one who challenges them are called cancer-lovers.
"But", the opposers say, "I don't love cancer. I just don't think peanut butter is the cause. And even if it is, a death-bed conversion won't cure the cancer. Leave the poor people alone."
The evangelists reply, "You have essentially killed your patient because of your ignorance. How can you live with yourself?"
"Quite easily" says the opposer, "I live under a different paradigm."
(many thanks to Swan for the idea)
Shining One

Hi Tetly,
I am a Christian foremost, part of the body of Christ. My particular denomination is inconsequential to my faith, other than I happen to agree with the particular conservative doctrines expressed. However, that is always subject to change, as my faith and knowledge becomes more refined.
I do not decide on matters of heaven and hell. That is not my province. I do believe it exists just as I believe heaven exists. Neither are within this universe nor are they in the stream of time. Here is a point where the JW cult has consistently mistranslated and misapplied 'sheol' and 'hades'. As scripture has progressed the aspects of this have changed. Before the advent of Christ the terms expressed were two aspects of the hereafter: Paradise (sometimes called 'Abraham's bosom') and hell, you can see this in the passage in Luke where Jesus tells us of the 'Rich Man' and Lazarus and in the Old Testament passage where Saul has a witch call up the soul of Samuel and God allows it. Further, the book of Hebrews has a passage that explains that the ancient heroes (Heb. 11) were looking forward to a heavenly place. Our Lord also took the 'captives' with Him to heaven during His ascension.
I do not hold to the Society's position on lying as a means to an end.
I am not an expert on biology or evolutionary theory. I generally leave that to others, though I do like to stir up the arrogant, elitist naturalists that seek to destroy everyone's faith in God.
Buddah, Allah and the 'Jehovah' that JWs portray are absolutely false gods, they are either imaginary or demonic. Judaism, Islam and cults have all been left behind during the revelation of scripture. The same heresies keep sprouting up in different forms and we (the Church) deal with them as we always have.
The evidence is overwhelming regarding the advent of Christ, creation is an obvious reality speaking to the existence of God, human pride and reasoning have always attempted to dethrone God and put 'self' on the throne. From your posts I can see that this is the case for you....at the moment.
BTW, if you want Christ in your life and to show Himself, you need to ask Him or my prayers will not suffice.

Rex
Shining One

Dear Jignat,
>1. On what basis have you determined that the bible is factual (your general assessment)? Is it by faith or some other means?

1) My own relationship with Christ; 2) The teachings of scripture; 3) The historicity of scripture; 4) The contextual analysis of scripture based on sound principals.

>2. I have consistently criticized defending the bible as infallible. I have consistently used the word infallible. Do you believe the bible is infallible? Scripture reference please.

2) You are obviously confusing 'inerrancy' with 'infallibility', that is your first stawman. The second is that you seem to believe that fundamentalists always take scripture literally. Look up the definitions in your dictionary or in any theology textbook.

3) The 'head covering' issue is related to the customs in and around Corinth: female pagan prostitutes shaved their heads and conducted pagan rites as priestesses. In a patriarchal society they also held authority over men in pagan religions. That is why Paul made his statements in the scriptures in question.
When people teach legalistic doctrine they have often been ignorant of the history of the Book. They also go completely out of context to teach their own made up doctrines.

4) I will challenge you whenever I see you encouraging others to run roughshod over scripture and the faith displayed by those who take God at His word.

For Daunt,
You confuse respect for the word of God with some type of worship of a 'book'.

Freebie, back at you:
>A small group of people have concluded, without a doubt, that peanut butter causes incurable cancer. They have dedicated their lives to eradicate peanut butter. Since this is a life-or-death matter, they are very passionate about their cause. They produce leaflets, campaign the removal of peanut butter from nursing homes and hospitals, and engage in lengthy debates with scientists who dispute their conclusion. They take to breaking in to cancer wards to reach the patients direct with this life-saving information. Any one who challenges them are called cancer-lovers.

That sounds like PETA only with peanut butter! LOL
Are you being forced to be a Christian in any way or are you merely offended at the teachings. I see no Christian terrorists strapping bombs to themselves. I do see some people, who are Christian or claim to be 'Christian' arguing out of context teachings.
Your very train of thought applies directly to the naturalist establishment that has almost total control of all that is taught as 'acceptable'. Naturalism is just as much a religion as Chrisianity and takes even more faith to believe.

>"But", the opposers say, "I don't love cancer. I just don't think peanut butter is the cause. And even if it is, a death-bed conversion won't cure the cancer. Leave the poor people alone."
The evangelists reply, "You have essentially killed your patient because of your ignorance. How can you live with yourself?""Quite easily" says the opposer, "I live under a different paradigm."

The death bed conversion will in fact 'cure the cancer' as it seals the fate of the soul into eternity. Yes, it is a 'different paradigm' and that takes us back to the beginning of the circular argument. It also takes us to Pascal's wager and the reasoning I tried to get the lot of you to see via C.S. Lewis, who BTW, was not a 'literalist' at all. He, like I try to, observed and analyzed context of scripture instead of making assumptions without merit.
REx
jgnat

1. I see. So you have determined that the bible is factual on the bible’s own testimony. You base your “facts” on faith. Circular argument.

2. Are you saying that you believe that the bible is fallible, but inerrant? I want to be clear on this point. Do you believe that God is infallible?

3. So you are admitting that bible teachings can be misinterpreted when they are taken out of context and history? I really do want to cover some of these sub-points. Many doctrines in the new testament are interpreted in a multitude of ways. How can you say that another’s way is UnChristian, another cultic? They can merely argue that their context and interpretation of history is more accurate than yours.
4. Challenge my right to speak my mind all you like. I will ignore such challenges from now on.

5. Daunt’s comment on your black-and-white thinking stands. You tell me to worship the bible as you do, or else I am a bible-hater. How can you not see that I am very respectful of the teachings of Christ, can follow God’s principles, yet refuse to worship the bible, or take on faith that it is inerrant?

6. “I see no Christian terrorists strapping bombs to themselves.” How about pro-lifers?

7. “Your very train of thought applies directly to the naturalist establishment that has almost total control of all that is taught as 'acceptable'. Naturalism is just as much a religion as Christianity and takes even more faith to believe.” Don’t try and peg me. I don’t ascribe to the Naturalist view, so you can forget bringing in your canned arguments on that one. My thoughts are my own.

8. “The death bed conversion will in fact 'cure the cancer' as it seals the fate of the soul into eternity.”
In your paradigm, where bible is “fact”, maybe so. A pro-lifer who bombs an abortion clinic justifies his act based on the many souls he is saving from certain death. But from my point of view, such preaching is cruelty, and your supposed “salvation” uncertain.

9. “I tried to get the lot of you to see via C.S. Lewis” Drop that right now. I am not "the lot”, I am my own woman. Second, don’t try and pull the “appeal to authority” gig. Express your own thoughts, please.
I do strive to be internally consistent. I believe to live Christ means to do. Words without action don’t heal. I think my strongest argument is my example, as it was with Christ.
Luke 7:20-23 KJV When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight. Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
Shining One

Well Jgnat,
You are pro-abortion. The most defenseless people in our society you will not stand up for. They can be killed just because the mother decides the baby is too inconvenient.
You choose to believe some parts of the Bible, yet claim to follow Christ. The Christ that you follow is one of your own making.
The only thing consistent about you is your inconsistency! You accuse me of worshiping the Bible because I respect the scriptures as what they claim to be, God inspired. If they are not God inspired, then the Jesus that you follow does not exist and never did.
He came and died for our sins...oh, you probably do not believe in sin, right? You stand against the presentation of the gospel and quote scripture while doing it. May God open your eyes and if He doesn't may He have mercy on your soul.
Rex
jgnat

Well, with this comment and a PM I received, I now realize I am debating with an idiot of collossal proportion.
I am NOT pro-abortion. I am anti-bombers.
Oh Shining One, you HAVE elevated the bible to God-head, as you have consistently accused me of being godless for refusing to bow down to your god. Yet you admit to elevating some scriptures above others based on context and history. You choose to believe some parts of the Bible. The Christ that you follow is one of your own making. Hypocrite!
The only thing consistent about you is your inconsistency!
It's no fun shooting fish in a barrel.
jgnat

Dear athiests of the board, I would welcome a healthy, intelligent debate with YOU in a month or two. Don't think that slaying idiots like "O-Shining One" bolsters your position. He's just too easy. It would be refreshing to take on a GENUINE challenge with intelligent and sensitive folks like you.
Give me a month or two, though. I promised myself I would finish with the Watchtower before I tackled the Big Debate on the existence of God.
stevenyc

jgnat: Dear athiests of the board, I would welcome a healthy, intelligent debate with YOU in a month or two. ; Don't think that slaying idiots like "O-Shining One" bolsters your position. ; He's just too easy. ; It would be refreshing to take on a GENUINE challenge with intelligent and sensitive folks like you. Give me a month or two, though. ; ;I promised myself I would finish with the Watchtower before I tackled the Big Debate on the existence of God.
OK, you got it. I will look forward to that too.
Take care
steve
DanTheMan

stir up the arrogant, elitist naturalists
My head just exploded. Given the general tone of SO's posts, this is as pot-calling-the-kettle-black as one could possibly imagine.

Questions for Jgnat

Share this