How do you know when your opponent is losing an argument about illegal immigration? Your opponent calls you a racist.
XJW4EVR
JoinedPosts by XJW4EVR
-
47
Do You Believe in Sanctuary Cities?
by sammielee24 insan francisco is just one of many sanctuary cities in this country.
as a permanent residence to the usa having had to go through immigration meetings, medical tests, means tests and a pretty good dose of fear - it bothers me that the same city that i had to go to for my hearing, past armed guards to prove my worth, wants illegals to come out of the woodwork and take advantage of the services the city has to offer, with a promise that they won't be rounded up or harmed in any way.
i don't seem to understand this system at all - i feel penalized somehow for doing what was right yet, i can still feel badly for those who are scared while here illegally.
-
-
-
47
Do You Believe in Sanctuary Cities?
by sammielee24 insan francisco is just one of many sanctuary cities in this country.
as a permanent residence to the usa having had to go through immigration meetings, medical tests, means tests and a pretty good dose of fear - it bothers me that the same city that i had to go to for my hearing, past armed guards to prove my worth, wants illegals to come out of the woodwork and take advantage of the services the city has to offer, with a promise that they won't be rounded up or harmed in any way.
i don't seem to understand this system at all - i feel penalized somehow for doing what was right yet, i can still feel badly for those who are scared while here illegally.
-
-
XJW4EVR
I can give you one good reason why I oppose "sanctuary" city policies.
-
27
Missed college when you were younger? Here's a good solution!
by Awakened at Gilead inat my age i didn't want to spend the next 4-10 years going to college classes after work.
i have mentioned this in a few popsts but wanted to share this on a new thread so that everyone can find out how easy and cheap it can be to go to college.. i am studying online with cuny (city university of ny).
tuition is $2165 per semester if you take 4 or more classes.
-
-
XJW4EVR
Starting my college education was the best thing I have ever done. I started late, like you did. Only I chose to attend class. It was great. I was recommended and received a full ride scholarship designed for older students. It has been a great experience that I would never trade for all the wealth in the world.
-
27
C.S. Lewis and his "trilemma".
by gaiagirl inauthor c.s.
lewis once wrote that one of three situations exist: .
1) jesus was the son of god .
-
-
XJW4EVR
Ok XJW,
If it doesnt make sense I'd be happy to break it down for you.
Are all dogs mammals?
YES
No cats are dogs?
Correct
Then no cats are mammals right?
Correct? No there are other possibilties not discussed here. Lewis only presented 3 possibilties. There are other possibilties. Therefore his argument is logically flawed. This doesnt mean his premise is wrong. Jesus could very well have been the son of god inspite of his flawed logic.So when yes you are correct. Early followers Might have corrected errors. They might not have. Since they might not have Lewis didnt present enough possibilties for a logical argument.
IP-SEC, I understand what you are attempting to say. However, your presupposition is not based on reality, and that is what does not make sense to me.
You are presupposing that the followers of Jesus would not defend their leader against teachings that he never made. This is so incredulous that I can't even find words. You are going to sit there and tell me that the "true" followers of Jesus (the ones that did not believed him to be the Son of God) would stand idly by and let the "false" followers of Jesus (the ones that believed him to be the Son of God) define this early Jewish sect?
Edited to add: Furthermore, you have 17 other New Testament books which are written in an apologetic style, defending what they believed to be true. Most of these books were written within the lifetimes of the people that were eyewitnesses to what happened to Jesus. So again, we have human nautre showing itself, something that you want to deny to the followers of Jesus.
You are also presupposing that Jesus' enemies would not bring out the issue that Jesus never claimed to be God. This is the very point that they killed him over.
There is only one way to go through the horns of the trilemma, and that is to deny that Jesus ever existed. Prove that and you disprove Christianity. For without a real Jesus, then there is no resurrection, and if there is no resurrection, then I might as well become an atheist, because no other religions offer any true hope to humanity.
-
27
C.S. Lewis and his "trilemma".
by gaiagirl inauthor c.s.
lewis once wrote that one of three situations exist: .
1) jesus was the son of god .
-
-
XJW4EVR
They might have corrected them, they might not have.
Yeah, right. I guess these would be the first people not to defend their leader?
The fact that they might have does not cancel the proposition that they might not have.
This makes no sense at all.
The fact that Lewis' argument was logically flawed does not cancel his premise. Just his argument was flawed.
Lewis' argument is not logically flawed. The OP's is.
-
27
C.S. Lewis and his "trilemma".
by gaiagirl inauthor c.s.
lewis once wrote that one of three situations exist: .
1) jesus was the son of god .
-
-
XJW4EVR
I propose that perhaps Jesus never did say he was the Son of God, but OTHER people writing decades after he had died said he made that claim.
This statement does not follow logically. If these incorrect statements were made within decades after Jesus' death, then why didn't His followers (who would still be alive) correct the erroneous statements?
Lewis' trilemma still stands.
-
18
Pentecostals? Should I be afraid of them?
by ThomasCovenant injust finished watching the film 'borat'.
in it there is a scene where he attends what i assume is a pentecostal church meeting.
for all i know it is a setup.
-
-
XJW4EVR
I have never seen Borat (and never will either). That being said, the term "Pentecostal" applies to Christians that believe in the perpetuity of the sign gifts. The countering view is cessationism, which holds that the sign gifts ceased at either the close of the New Testament canon or with the death of the last apostle. Pentecostals believe that, what they call "the baptism of the Holy Spirit," is evidenced by the recipient of said baptism speaking in "tongues." Some of the more established denominations that hold this view are The Church of the Foursquare Gospel, The Assemblies of God, The Church of God, and The Church of God in Christ (the latter two being traditionally composed of African-American believers). Their is a more conservative view called Charismatic, which believes in the perpetuity of the gifts, but do not neccessarily hold to the baptism of the Holy Spirit being evidenced by the speaking of tongues. I attended a church that is loosely affiliated with the Assemblies of God. They are Pentecostal, I am not Pentecostal, rather I am more Charismatic.
In this area there is an agreement to disagree within the body of the universal church. I would suggest that, as with any church you speak with the pastor, visit the church numerous times, and pray about this before making a commitment to join the church.
In anser to your question, no, you do not have a reason to be "paranoid." You have many Watchtower presuppositions in your mind, and you need to work past them in order to fully enjoy the benefits of a Spirit led life.
-
15
JW Youths - Living "Double Lives"
by BBOARD ini grew up around very hypocritical jw youth.
many of whom i now know at 20 were never living up to the lie they put out ... stupid me i was.
here i stand now because of it - i am sure most of you here being ex-jw's know this very familiar situation.
-
-
XJW4EVR
"Johnny" is the model JW in the hall.
That was me.
He may even be the elder's son.
Me, again.
Which as we all know gives him EXTRA immunity (usually).
When my double life was revealed, my father threw me to the elders. I was privately reproved and publicly reproved. I should have gotten myself DF'd after the 2nd JC.
He comments at every meeting. He goes out in serivce regulary. He is "HAPPY TO BE A JW". Why?
In my case, I stayed in because I was a minor, and literally had no where else to go. All my friends and family were J-Dubs, and we all led double lives. I would guess that this is the case with most J-Dub teens, so don't be too hard on them.
Of course there is more ."Johnny" is accepted by the JW Youth Clique (TM) They like him KNOW that this cult is a sham. So they live their life. Often to a much more wild extent than world youth (though this is NEVER spoken of across the KH platform)
The reason why was simple, we all had dirt on each other. The only two "real" Dub youth were two girls that I, and the others thought were closet lovers.
All the while, uknown to the often strict JW Parents (and other members of the KH), perfect "Johnny" is living a hardcore double life. That's right people. Probably the only reason Johnny is sooo confident, self assured, ambitious, and happy all the part time he is around JW''s and KH because he doing his own thing on the side full time. Chances are, like many "worldy youth", "Johnny" is already having sex, and/or drinking, and/or parting, and/or you-fill-in-the-blank. He CERTAINLY isnt shy around girls ... and by proxy is NEVER self concious around other JW's - but still has the common sense to play "nice guy" around the older JW women. BRILLIANT. Being "nice guy" around JW women gets you browine points 100% of the time. So OF COURSE it is no thing to show up for a couple of hours and pretend to be something else - espically when the reward (accpetance and/or admiration from other JW's without shunning) is so good.
This is the problem with works based "christianity." It allows you to do the minimum, and still keep your conscience clear even though you are living a morally deplorable life on the outside.
Meanwhile good, often nerdy due to a restriction from other activities deemed "too wordly" boy "Wizard" is ACTUALLY doing and living his youth towing the line the way the Watchtowe and GB tell him. He lives by the book 100% ... well not always. But when he fails he often blames himself. The JW cult by design, since he is socially awkward, breaks him. He spirals into a broken young man (or 20 something). As we all know whining, lack of confidence, deperation, and a always-serious attidue is a SUREFIRE repellant for females. If he doesnt do something fast he might end up like another one of the VERY REPRESSED 40 year old virgin guys in the Kingdom Halls (sadly they exist - there used to be one in my hall). Hopefully he sees its all a cult and gets out ... but how to make up for lost years?
My best friend growing up was like this. Even though he had sex with a "worldly" girl (whom he eventually married, and is an unbaptized associate) he is a very repressed person. He has difficulty opening himself up to her out of fear that the secrets in his heart will be exposed. This I think is one of the greatest fears any married person would have because you can;t be honest with the person that you are supposed to be honest with. The Borg takes priority over every relationship that a person has. My ex wen to the elders to inform them that I had become a Christian and had gotten baptized at that church.
Sadly, you have described the youth scene in the average KH to a tee.
-
75
The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith
by Narkissos inin the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "historical jesus," a side question.. let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical gospels are not historical accounts of jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but i'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.. what do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of christian faith:.
1. that there was no "historical jesus" at all, and that the gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the word made flesh" so to say;.
2. that there was a "historical jesus" completely different from the christian saviour -- for example, a galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e.
-
-
XJW4EVR
Tuesday:
If a Christian kills another person because of a "logical extension"of their beliefs or even one step further because of their beliefs more than likely they say it.
FIrst, a professing Christian can do anything he/'she wishes to do, namely because he/she is not trully "born again." Secondly, please show me any teaching where Jesus stated that the sword was to be the method of conversion. Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church did not apply this in its history. Instead it took the Muslim approach, which I flippantly call, "Mohhammed's believe it, or else."
However if an atheist commits an atrocity I'm supposed to believe that it's the logical extension of their beliefs or lack there of without any examples.
First, I believe that you are being dishonest with yourself and others with this statement. The reason I did not site examples was to try and get you to think why I, or any Christian would make such a statement. The reason why I, and other thinking Christians (R.C. Sproul, Greg Koukl, Robert Morey, just to name a few) believe that the atrocities committed by atheists is a natural extension of their beliefs is as follows:
1. Christians believe that humans are the highest creation of God. The reason Christians believe this is because humanity is the only segment of God's creation that contains the imago dei, or image of God. That is why murder is an affront to moral law (more on this later). 2. If an atheist is correct, and God did not create the universe, in general, and man, in particular, then man is no different than the beasts of the field, the fish in the ses, or the insects crawling in the dirt. If this assumption is true, then it only follows that human life has little or no significance to some atheists.
Stalin killed for political power, Mao killed for...it also looks like political power... and Khmer Rouge killed for...I can't believe it....it looks like political power. Not one of them says that they killed because there's no God, or because they don't value human life because there's no God.
Yes, they killed for power. They killed because they had no regard for life, as I have explained above.
They kill but keep their atheist motives secret, but Christians kill and let their beliefs known to the world.
What's your point? That atheist atrocities are somehow "better" than Christian atrocities?
Please enlighten me as to why Christians who are taught "thou shalt not kill" are so open to speaking their beliefs after breaking one of their own commandments
First, there is no such commandment as "thou shall not kill." The commandment is properly translated rendition of the commandment is "Thou shall not murder." Later in the Mosaic Law, the provision of the "City of Refuge" was instituted in order to protect those that killed a fellowman. Now whule there are many examples of professed Christians breaking this commandment, and I and others will absolutely not justify their actions. In fact, we believe that these people acted contrary to this, and decry their actions.
while Atheists who are taught no such thing are strangely mute on the subject.
Why are atheists "strangly mute" about this subject?
-
75
The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith
by Narkissos inin the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "historical jesus," a side question.. let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical gospels are not historical accounts of jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but i'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.. what do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of christian faith:.
1. that there was no "historical jesus" at all, and that the gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the word made flesh" so to say;.
2. that there was a "historical jesus" completely different from the christian saviour -- for example, a galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e.
-
-
XJW4EVR
I didn't want to let this comment pass by. I'll ask you the actual question, can you show how many followers of Khmer Rouge, Stalinists, Maoists actually have put in writing that they were committing atrocities because they didn't believe in God? Did Stalin even commit his atrocities BECAUSE he was an atheist or because it suited what he wanted to do? So I guess that's a challenge; prove that atrocities have been committed in the name of Atheism, for the sole reason that the person didn't believe in God. I'm sure people have committed atrocities that were atheists, there's a difference between people doing bad things and happen to be something as opposed to doing bad things BECAUSE of something. I'll await your examples.
You miss my point. I never said that the atrocities committed by atheists were committed because they were atheists, but rather that the atrocities committed by these atheists were the logical extension of their beliefs, or lack thereof. Therefore no examples are neccessary.
Oh and one other thing, there is no need to bully me into a response by posting multiple responses. I check threads and respond as I have time. If you wish further dialoge please keep that in mind, or I will not respond to your replies.