Posts by myelaine

1495

An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

by AK - Jeff in

estimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.

that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.

still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.

myelaine

dear OnTheWayOut...

the bible says that the whole world is under the sway of the evil one...that means that God doesn't hold much sway over the people of the world either. in Jesus' time He showed that He had control over nature (calming of the sea and the bursting nets of fish). the bible also implies that as evil men wax worse and worse toward the time of the end natural disasters will increase.

After the redeemed of God AND creation is redeemed(romans 8:18-23) God will hold sway. Nature will be under His control again. incedentally, "backsliding" isn't going to go unnoticed...zech 14:16-19

God allows us our free will but our choices have also allowed for our loss of protection from Him.

love michelle

p.s. still thinking...God made all from one blood/clay (acts 17:26)in this way we are His offspring...but God has adopted spiritual children to continue on with Him into eternity...we are not all His adopted spiritual children.

1495

An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

by AK - Jeff in

estimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.

that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.

still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.

myelaine

dear still thinking...

you said: "I just love it when we question what God does or does not do, people always come back to 'what are you doing?'

Well, that is not the question here. Plenty of humans do plenty to help and plenty don't. The question is...why does God let children starve to death. Are they not his children? "...

I asked you what you were doing because if you don't believe in God then you don't have reason to pass the buck do you?...you said that plenty of people do help the poor of other nations... I know plenty of people do...do you? until you do more than the minimum (out of guilt) you still don't have reason to pass the buck do you?

I suspect that you didn't bother to read the scriptures that I included. The bible says that God has a plan.(romans 8:18-23) Those who believe in His Son as their redeemer were to spread this message to the ends of the world. typically this would mean that a significant number would be on the same page so to speak and working in uniSon as an army (actually extending effort as well as resources for the oppressed in the name of Jesus)of God taking direction from Him and doing His will we would feed the hungry and generally make the world a better more equitable place...BUT...mankind (including unfortunately some who call themselves christians), being generally self-centered and power hungry, decided that this plan didn't serve thier purposes. In fact it went against their plans, their very nature and character.

God also knew our unredeemed fallen nature and character would eventually lead us to destroy ourselves completely...that's why Jesus said that the things concerning Him had an end(luke22:37)...there will be an end to God's efforts to redeem mankind. That end is soon because He cares for these little ones who have suffered at the hands of unredeemed mankind. He's going to disallow passing the buck and take these little ones back to Himself.

love michelle

p.s. these little ones are NOT gods...they are humans...OUR human children.

87

Spong: "Why We Must Reclaim The Bible From Fundamentalists"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

john shelby spong, the retired american bishop, has written a new book.

his article, below, briefly explains the purpose of his new book.

why we must reclaim the bible from fundamentalists.

myelaine

dear designs...

the *scientific method demands tangible verifiability and repeatability as a prerequisite to establishing proof......

love michelle

*Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. [1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. [2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." [3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theoriesthat encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established~wikipedia~

1495

An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

by AK - Jeff in

estimates range from 4 million to 15 million children die from starvation each year on this planet.

that's between 500 and 1700 children a day, depending on what numbers you accept.

still, no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?.

myelaine

dear still thinking...

you said: "It bothers me most of all when we compare God to ourselves as being a loving parent...because I don't see this in the world. I see death, starvation, disease and destruction...as a loving parent, if we had the power to do something about it we would. He doesn't. "...it is shown in the bible and proven in the world that God works primarily on the "spiritual man" in this realm. the "flesh man" is to be cast off or the "physical sorrows" are to be credited as nothing compared to the joy of the (redeemed) world to come. romans 8:18:23 (luke 22:37)

having said that, have you excercised your "power" (in this world) to be of utmost assistance in the fight against death, starvation, disease and destruction?...

you know, God opens doors and closes forever doors that go no where.

love michelle

87

Spong: "Why We Must Reclaim The Bible From Fundamentalists"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

john shelby spong, the retired american bishop, has written a new book.

his article, below, briefly explains the purpose of his new book.

why we must reclaim the bible from fundamentalists.

myelaine

dear designs...

ummm...are you being factitious?

do you want to consult a rabbi?

love michelle

87

Spong: "Why We Must Reclaim The Bible From Fundamentalists"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

john shelby spong, the retired american bishop, has written a new book.

his article, below, briefly explains the purpose of his new book.

why we must reclaim the bible from fundamentalists.

myelaine

dear designs...

I also should have emphasised that the number 144,000 may not be symbolic because it seems that there are few jewish people who defer to God whole-heartedly and know and believe that they are living under the wrath of God...hence the push among some orthodox jewish to rebuild the third temple in order to commence the sacrifices on behalf of their people...( are you more like these or more anti-semitic?)

Orthodox Judaism believes in the rebuilding of a Third Temple and the resumption of sacrificial worship, although there is disagreement about how rebuilding should take place. Orthodox scholars and rabbinic authorities generally believe that rebuilding should occur in the era of the Jewish Messiah at the hand of Divine Providence, although a minority position, following the opinion of Maimonides, holds that Jews should endeavour to rebuild the temple themselves, whenever possible. [ 1 ] Orthodox authorities generally predict the resumption of the complete traditional system of sacrifices, but Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist authorities disavow all belief in the resumption of Korban. This belief is embedded in Orthodox Jewish prayer services. Three times a day, Orthodox Jews pray the Amidah, which contains prayers for the Temple's restoration and for sacrificial worship's resumption, and every day there is a recitation of the order of the day's sacrifices and the psalms the Levites would have sung that day.

The generally accepted position among Orthodox Jews is that the full order of the sacrifices will be resumed upon the building of the Temple. Although Maimonides wrote in his early work "A Guide for the Perplexed" "that God deliberately has moved Jews away from sacrifices towards prayer, as prayer is a higher form of worship,", however his definitive book "Mishneh Torah" - which is considered by some to be the final authority on Jewish law - states that animal sacrifices will resume in the third temple, and details how they will be carried out. Some [who?] attribute to Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook the view that animal sacrifices will not be reinstituted. These views on the Temple service are sometimes misconstrued (for example, in Olat Re'ayah, commenting on the prophecy of Malachi ("Then the grain-offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to God as in the days of old and as in former years" [Malachi 3:4]), he indicates that only grain offerings will be offered in the reinstated Temple service, while in a related essay from Otzarot Hare'ayah he suggests otherwise). ~wikipedia~

love michelle

87

Spong: "Why We Must Reclaim The Bible From Fundamentalists"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

john shelby spong, the retired american bishop, has written a new book.

his article, below, briefly explains the purpose of his new book.

why we must reclaim the bible from fundamentalists.

myelaine

dear designs...

interestingly, once the saving gospel of Jesus Christ has been abandoned in favor of diplomacy(world rev 13:1-6) and compromise(pseudo-religious "church" 13:11-17) the only ones who appreciate the holiness of God and therefore understand the necessity of a Saviour are those spoken of in rev 7:3-8...it is not israel "the church" in view here but "the tribes" of israel are invoked as the last chosen*

note: after those on earth have taken the mark, the scene is shown that there are only 144,000 left who actually "follow" the LAMB and have His Father's name written on their foreheads. rev. 14:1

love michelle

*these chosen have NOT fornicated with the "kings of the earth" like the pseudo-religious (but un-saved) "church" in rev 13:11-17...they are virgins and among those who are called firstfruits(james 1:18) to God and to the Lamb...rev 14:4-5.

87

Spong: "Why We Must Reclaim The Bible From Fundamentalists"

by leavingwt in

jw
friends

john shelby spong, the retired american bishop, has written a new book.

his article, below, briefly explains the purpose of his new book.

why we must reclaim the bible from fundamentalists.

myelaine

dear THE GLADIATOR...

you said: "So why not let Fundamentalists keep the Bible. Having two different groups of Christians with conflicting ideas about the Bible and using the same book is not credible."...

the whole idea is to get people to "drift" from the paramount message in the bible (we have already been judged by God as sinners deserving of death, complete banishment from the presence of His holiness and in need of a Saviour) and the best way to do that is to divide and conquer...in that way both the bible and the "fundimentalists" lose credibility.(disunity+)

there are the "fundimentalists" and there are the believers like those in john 8:31,37,40,43,52,55,59 who believed, then when Jesus wanted to teach them more about sin they got indignant because they were children of abraham(faith)...they thought they knew God but Jesus said basicly they didn't, they were liars...they wanted to kill Him whereas abraham knew that God would provide a sacrifice in substitution. We see the same thing today with others who don't want to "hear" the paramount message in the bible. These want to and slowly are "re-branding" Jesus into some sort of love guru.

the day will come when the paramount message will no longer be preached because it is easier to "drift" with the current than guard what was delivered to the saints...according to prophesy...revelation 13:7

love michelle

62

Baptism in Holy Spirit and in Fire

by Inkie in

jw
friends

this morning my brother asked me a question about the following biblical text.

i indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than i, whose shoes i am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the holy spirit and in fire.matthew 3:11. .

apparently, it seems, the brothers statement came from the societys cd-rom.

myelaine

dear N.drew...

Jesus of the scriptures didn't seem to disagree with how His Father was portrayed in the OT. AGuest has said over and over that scribal error has portrayed Him (for us) as unrighteous...Jesus taught about a hell that she disagrees with (because she finds "it" to be a lie given His righteousness)...she has publicly rejected Jesus and said that her lord certainly isn't "Jesus"...I'm sorry, I'm not going to wade through all of her posts to find all the relevent quotes but here is one link: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/216692/2/Soooo-Brother-Daniel-and-Sister-Pat-Just-Left

...would it matter if I supplied a thousand quotes?...on this linked thread she satisfied ShadesofGrey that she had witnessed to "Jesus" and then went on to deny to me that "Jesus" is the one who loves her or that "Jesus" is the object of her affections...

love michelle

p.s. you completely changed your question...your question was: "do you have evidence to share about your comment "AGuest has completly rejected Jesus of the bible"?How I understand her posts is she calls Jesus "Lord", but that is honorable, in my opinion."

62

Baptism in Holy Spirit and in Fire

by Inkie in

jw
friends

this morning my brother asked me a question about the following biblical text.

i indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than i, whose shoes i am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the holy spirit and in fire.matthew 3:11. .

apparently, it seems, the brothers statement came from the societys cd-rom.

myelaine

dear Inkie...

isn't your post above circular reasoning at its finest + AGuest has completely rejected Jesus of the bible instead choosing her lord...so how is it that you can say this? (Jaheshua, whom perhaps you know better as “Jesus”)

love michelle