Posts by aChristian

28

Who Draws The Line and Why?

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

i wish to present three situations that are true to life and open up a discussion on these different scenarios and how would would personally act toward them.. 1) a 75 year old person has been a jw for the past 40 years.

most of their friends are jws.

they look forward to the fellowship at the meetings and though the congregation is far from perfect, they are pleased with the fact that they have a purpose in life.

aChristian

Hillary,

You asked: Would you try to inform them of the failings of their religion if you were given the opportunity?

I think you know my answer. Of course I would. Why? Because I have good news to share with them.

Sure, these people's lives may be somewhat better with JWs than they used to be without JWs. But I know they could be much better still as free Christians. I know how much better my life is since I shed the heavy yoke of Watchtower slavery and replaced it with the kindly yoke of Jesus Christ. I also know that even though the Watchtower yoke may be a bit lighter than the various yokes these people used to bear, it is still much heavier than the one Jesus Christ requires His followers to carry.

Because I know these things, I would feel compelled to tell these people that Christ died to set them free. Free not only from sin's condemnation to death, but also free from bondage to religious laws and to all men who make them.

Some here may choose to "leave well enough alone" because they have nothing better to offer these people. But I believe I do have something much better to offer them. I would encourage them to develop a personal relationship with Jesus Christ rather than with a religious publishing house. And I would invite them to attend Church with me and my family and encourage them to become part of a new spiritual family, one whose love for them and friendship with them would not be contingent on their total loyalty to a few men in Brooklyn, New York.

88

How do you know if you're going to heaven?

by Christiangal in

the only way to go to heaven is believing that jesus christ is god's son, and that he was sent here to earth to die on the cross for our sins.

if you confess him as lord and savior, then and only then, will you be certain that you are going to heaven.

aChristian

Jan,

You wrote: Read the text in John again. ... when it comes to religion ... belief in absurd tales ... is evidence of virtue, instead of stupidity. Why is that?

I read it again. Nowhere in this text does Jesus either say or imply that it is a virtue to believe something without having some evidence of its truthfulness. The fact is, the Bible contains several passages that encourage us to be skeptical of those making religious claims. I'm sure you know of these passages, so I wont bother to quote them. In the text you quoted, the only thing Christ indicated He considered to be a virtue was being willing to believe in things that are true without having absolute physical proof that they are true.

You wrote: You simply miss -- intentionally for rhetorical effect, of course -- the moral lesson of the whole tale.

It seems we understand this passage differently. But I will not question the motives behind the understanding you expressed, as you have questioned mine.

88

How do you know if you're going to heaven?

by Christiangal in

the only way to go to heaven is believing that jesus christ is god's son, and that he was sent here to earth to die on the cross for our sins.

if you confess him as lord and savior, then and only then, will you be certain that you are going to heaven.

aChristian

Jan,

You wrote: One amazing example of how doubt was villified, we find in the story about Thomas the doubter. ... Alas, here we find Jesus (John 20:29) ruining the whole story by making an outragously stupid conclusion: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." ... In other words, the Jesus of John blessed blind superstitious faith and repudiated sound skepticism.

Baloney. Jesus did not condemn Thomas' sceptisism. He simply praised most Christians whom He knew were willling and able to believe in Him with less physical proof. You seem to think it is a virtue to only believe in things which can be proven beyond any doubt. I do not. Requiring absolute proof of something before you are willing to believe in it is not a virtue. It is a harmful vise. Such an attitude causes people many problems in life. One such problem is being unable to trust in other people. I trust my wife completely. I am certain that she has never cheated on me and never will. But how can I be sure? I have not had her followed everyday by a private detective. Neither am I able to look into the future. So how can I be so sure about this matter without absolute proof? It's called "faith." I have faith in my wife. I know she appreciates my faith in her.

I also have faith in Jesus Christ. And I'm sure that He appreciates my faith in Him. He indicated His appreciation for Christians who are able to put this kind of faith in Him when He said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

126

adam & eve

by gotcha in

does anyone here take the creation story literally?

if yes, did u do ample research and think carefully but still believe in it?

if u don't think that the story should be taken as literal, what is your reading of it and do u still believe in the bible as the inspired word of god?...thanks in advance..

aChristian

Clash,

We have gone through this before. I have already answered this question at great length in other threads. Evidently you didn't read my responses to you or didn't understand them. So, I doubt posting another long answer to your question here will change things. If you are relly interested in reading a long answer to your question look up one of those old threads and do so.

For now I will just say that the word "fall" is not used in the Bible to describe what happened in Eden. I believe that Adam did not "fall" from a condition of righteousness to a condition of unrighteousness. I believe God simply used Adam to demonstrate the unrighteous condition of the human race, of which Adam was a part. God also used Adam to show that all people are undeserving of eternal life, and that we are all in need of God's forgivness which He now offers us through Jesus Christ.

Clash, obviously we understand some parts of the Bible a little differently. Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to do that. Christians are.

61

Flood Legends "Proof" of Global Flood...

by AlanF in

jw
friends

the march 1, 2002 watchtower contains a couple of articles on noah's flood and the application of this legend to "our day".

thrust of the articles is first to show that the flood was a real, earthwide event, and then to scare ignorant readers into accepting the jw message by claiming that our world is about to undergo a similar divine punishment.

pretty standard fare for long time jw observers.. in the past the watchtower society has published extensive material purporting to show that a global flood occurred a few thousand years ago.

aChristian

Seeker,

You wrote: So 119 years, 11 months, and 3 1/2 weeks wasn't enough preaching. He needed that last day or two for return visits, huh.

Yes, I think so. By so doing God may have intended to also illustrate the fact that He gives every one of us the opportunity to repent and accept His provision for our salvation right up until our last day of life.

You wrote: Besides, that would mean Noah was keeping the wicked from heading for higher ground too. Nasty trick.

The wicked had no time to head for higher ground. The Bible seems to say that the flood was primarily caused by "waters from the great deep" which "burst forth." I believe this probably refers to tidal waves which came from the Persian Gulf. I believe the land of Noah was far enough inland from the Gulf that it escaped the crashing force of those tidal waves but was, nonetheless, quickly and completely flooded with water, allowing no time for those outside the ark to move to higher ground.

You wrote: The seaworthiness of all wooden ships is clearly not in question.

Read Jan's article attempting to debunk the possibility that Genesis is describing a large local flood. You will see that is indeed part of what he is questioning.

You wrote: It is the particular design of the ark that was so stupid. If God designed it, He made a shape guaranteed to fail.

That is odd. I have always heard that the ark's 6 to 1 length to width size ratio is the perfect ratio for large seagoing vessels, and creates a vessel that is very stable and cannot be easily capsized. I have also heard that that this proportion of length to width continues to be used by navel architects.

You wrote: If the flood was as cataclysmic as flood believers are forced to say it was (to make the mountains, freeze the arctic, destroy civilizations), the ark would have been in for a heck of a ride. ... The ark would have been in splinters in no time flat.

You seem to forget that I do not believe Noah's flood covered the mountains and froze the arctic. I believe Noah's flood was a large inland flood which covered only the land of Noah, a "land" which may have been only 30 or 40 miles across.

61

Flood Legends "Proof" of Global Flood...

by AlanF in

jw
friends

the march 1, 2002 watchtower contains a couple of articles on noah's flood and the application of this legend to "our day".

thrust of the articles is first to show that the flood was a real, earthwide event, and then to scare ignorant readers into accepting the jw message by claiming that our world is about to undergo a similar divine punishment.

pretty standard fare for long time jw observers.. in the past the watchtower society has published extensive material purporting to show that a global flood occurred a few thousand years ago.

aChristian

Jan,

You wrote: the claim that the ark was anchored. The story clearly indicates it did not land where it had first been made.

I don't think the story clearly indicates that the ark drifted far from its original location. The Genesis account only tells us that the ark came to rest in the hills of Ararat. However, as COJ's comments which I posted pointed out, there is evidence that the area Noah and his family called "Ararat" may have extended much further south than it does today and even much further south than it did at the time Genesis was written. That being the case, Noah's ark may have come to rest not far from its original location. It may have been anchored shortly after the flood waters reached their peak before it drifted very far away and, if it was, it would have then drifted very little further.

You wrote: You keep ignoring that water runs downhill. A 150 day flood requires an enclosed area.

As COJ's comments which I posted pointed out, Mesopotamia has often been described as a "trough" by geologists because it is "enclosed" by areas of higher elevation on its north, east and west sides. If part of central Mesopotamia suddenly lost elevation due to a meteor impact, which some scientists have recently said may have caused Noah's flood, and tidal waves from the Persian Gulf brought on by that same meteor impact or another one accompanying it drowned the land of Noah, as some now understand the epic of Gilgamesh to say, then that three sided "trough" may have temporarily turned into a four sided trough, that is until the land of Noah recovered its previous elevation, and while doing so drained its flood waters back into the Persian Gulf from which they mainly came. Remember, the Bible does not say that it was just the 40 days of rain that were responsible for the flood. It tells us that it was also and probably primarily caused by "waters of the great deep" which "burst forth." (Gen. 7:11) I say, "probably primarily caused" because that is the first cause of the flood that is listed in Genesis.

You wrote: Your "rebuttal" of the wooden boat argument with a reference to Columbus' three ships shows you never bothered to find out the actual size of those historical ships.

I am certainly aware that those ships were considerably smaller than Noah's ark. But since your argument was one against the seaworthiness of all wooden ships, I thought it was relevant to mention them. Especially since I believe they endured much more difficult conditions at sea than Noah's ark was subjected to. And besides, as I also pointed out, those wooden ships were designed by mere men. The Bible says God designed Noah's ark. I think God is capable of designing a wooden vessel of that size that could float in what were probably fairly calm waters for several months.

26

Evolution and Man Where are We Going?

by D wiltshire in

evolution and man where are we going?.

i feel evolution is still happening to man not so observable.

in his physical appearance but very outstandingly in the brain.. here's an observation of mine, and others: first let me quote amazing records strongly suggest that civilization goes back over 10,000 years.

aChristian

Dave,

I wrote: most people possessing greater than average intelligence have fewer children than people possessing less than average intelligence. If this trend continues, the odds will work against the human race producing any such "advanced" children.

You responded: Doesn't this sound a little like Hitlers reasoning?
Who is the Judge of all mankind? Isn't he the one that can only answer Who is the dumber than someone else?

I don't think so. There are such things as IQ tests. I believe they do a pretty good job of evaluating a person's intelligence. The Bible tells us only God can judge our hearts. And that is the only judgment that is really important. I believe that when the Bible uses the word "heart" it refers to a person's attitudes toward God and their fellow humans. I'm sure God will judge some people who possess less than average intelligence but have kind hearts more mercifully than He will judge some people who possess greater than average intelligence and unkind hearts. When that day comes I'm sure some who have "big" brains and "small" hearts will be glad to trade places with some who have "small" brains and "big" hearts.

26

Evolution and Man Where are We Going?

by D wiltshire in

evolution and man where are we going?.

i feel evolution is still happening to man not so observable.

in his physical appearance but very outstandingly in the brain.. here's an observation of mine, and others: first let me quote amazing records strongly suggest that civilization goes back over 10,000 years.

aChristian

Dave,

I am not saying that an evolutionary advance in the mind of man could not occur in a relatively short period of time. I am just saying that I see no evidence that one has. And I do not believe any credible scientist has suggested that such a change has taken place.

I also think that such a change is unlikely. For if a few mentally advanced human "mutants" did appear on earth they would most likely be the children of parents who possessed greater than average intelligence. And, as Jan has pointed out, most people possessing greater than average intelligence have fewer children than people possessing less than average intelligence. If this trend continues, the odds will work against the human race producing any such "advanced" children. But, even if such an evolutionary leap does occur, for these evolutionary advancements to survive within the human race and eventually bring about an improvement in our entire race, the few humans who then possess this advanced intelligence will have to then themselves produce offspring at a much greater rate than ordinary humans.

Now, you seem to feel that such a change may have already occurred in our race as a whole over the last few hundred years. I would have to see strong evidence of this to be convinced.

14

how long has man lived on the earth????

by master chief in

jw
friends

i was speaking recently to a jw and we talked about various topics and then i asked her about how long man has lived on the earth she said according to reliable history she said about 6000 years which begining with adam and eve, but what i have learned through external research that reliable history dates man back to millions of years she then said you shouldnt trust dating methods huh so i said the watchtower is keen to use history to show favour to the bible but then dismisses it when it opposes it, so she said they cant prove it so then i said she cant prove her theories she said i can its from bible "huh is she real" she said you must have faith in the bible.but anyway thats jws for u.

1 more thing i was told there has been other civilisations previous to adam and eve does anyone know more about this

aChristian

DW,

What part of ThiChi's post did you find objectionable?

26

Evolution and Man Where are We Going?

by D wiltshire in

evolution and man where are we going?.

i feel evolution is still happening to man not so observable.

in his physical appearance but very outstandingly in the brain.. here's an observation of mine, and others: first let me quote amazing records strongly suggest that civilization goes back over 10,000 years.

aChristian

Dave,

Though Jan and I do not always agree, on this issue we do. It took the human race about 4 billion years to evolve to where it is today. The evolution of modern man was a very slow process. I have a hard time believing that any significant evolutionary change in our race could occur in just a few hundred years. I also see no real evidence that it has.

I believe it is the opinion of scientific experts in the field of human evolution that people's brains, and bodies for that matter, have not changed in any noticeable way over the last 10,000 years. I believe the actual number of years they cite for this period of time is a much larger one. Things you have read that were said to be "evidence" to that effect, such as the development of the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, as well as the evolution of paintings during the last few hundred years are, I believe, anecdotal evidence at best.

I believe the only reason we now appear to be intellectual giants compared to "ancient" people, and even compared to people who lived just a few hundred years ago, is because we are, so to speak, standing on their shoulders. Today scientists, philosophers and even artists all have the advantage of being able to build upon nearly ten thousand years worth of work that was previously accomplished and recorded by those who lived before them. What if Galileo or Leonardo had been born today, rather than a few hundred years ago, and could build upon the work of men such as Newton and Einstein? Can you imagine how much more "evolved" their minds would now seem?