trevor,
No qualms at all in answering. Yes, yes, and no. I don't even feel the need to qualify the answers.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
OldSoul
JoinedPosts by OldSoul
-
61
defd, three sincere questions
by OldSoul indefd,.
on page 146 of what does the bible really teach?, the opening sentence of paragraph 6 purports to represent one of the six criteria for determining the true religion.
it reads: "god's servants base their teachings on the bible.".
-
-
OldSoul
-
61
defd, three sincere questions
by OldSoul indefd,.
on page 146 of what does the bible really teach?, the opening sentence of paragraph 6 purports to represent one of the six criteria for determining the true religion.
it reads: "god's servants base their teachings on the bible.".
-
-
OldSoul
Recap time:
defd: I will answer to the best of my ability but I WILL NOT go back and forth and argue.
Fair enough. Here are four of the teachings I cannot find support for in the Scripture. If someone publicly denies the validity of any one of these foundational doctrines or publicly affirms a contrary belief to any one of these, they risk expulsion from among Jehovah's Witnesses. I have source material readily available to show you, in case you question whether any of these are actually JW dogma.
(1) the Faithful and Discreet Slave is a class of people,
(2) that the holy spirit directs organizations, in addition to individuals,
(3) that the Faithful and Discreet Slave is responsible for revealing "new light" (as opposed to "food at the proper time") to anyone, and finally
(4) that Jehovah deals with individual other sheep differently than the little flock.
Can you establish these doctrines Scripturally without uninspired human interpretation?
The only thing saving me from expulsion so far is that I have not publicly denied the validity or publicly affirmed a belief to the contrary. But, in light of the point in What Does the Bible Really Teach? I don't feel bad about asying that if there is no support for these teachings in the Bible, then they are false.
THEN:
defd: Before we begin let me say that my shift at work is almost up so I wont be able to get into it to much but can pick it back up 2marrow, honestly.
THIS MORNING (2marrow):
I see you've made lot's of posts this morning. I want to trust you, honestly. Do you have an answer for me? Do you have Scriptures?
LASTLY:
defd: vitty old soul is NOT looking for answers.
Oh, really? I think the forum already knows otherwise. I have raised these same points on numerous occasions and have never received an answer. IF there is n answer, I want it. So far, no one has supplied one.
My earliest attempt, prior to what you call Apostasy:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/84617/1.ashx
I raised them several times in discussion threads, I don't know all of them. Usually I just raised them in the form of redirecting back to the "A Friend In Need" thread.
Next Attempt:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/98798/1.ashx
And lastly, you. Here. In this thread.
But, in your case, I even went so far as to agree to your terms. My statement that these teachings have no Scriptural support stands until shown to be untrue. The proof of untruth, in this case, can only be Scriptural support. If you show it, that will be the end of it, you made perfectly clear you don't want to argue about your proof and I accepted those terms.
What is it, defd? What is the real problem? Did you find out there is no Scriptural proof for these doctrines of your faith? Do you find yourself forced to "save face" somehow, even if it is by maligning a poster with a long track record of honesty?
Hm. We'll see. But I think your lack of support is showing. If you have lost my respect it is only to the degree that your promises to me are not being fulfilled. That is how the Organization lost my respect, too.
OldSoul
-
61
defd, three sincere questions
by OldSoul indefd,.
on page 146 of what does the bible really teach?, the opening sentence of paragraph 6 purports to represent one of the six criteria for determining the true religion.
it reads: "god's servants base their teachings on the bible.".
-
-
OldSoul
defd,
Are you a mind reader? If not, then on what basis do you challenge whether I want answers?
There is no Scriptural proof that I can find, and I have earnestly looked very hard. Can you find any? If so, show it. But you are NOT welcome to dispute my honesty in asking. EVER. But, let's imagine for the moment a world where I am a liar: Does my having raised this point and your refusal to show Scriptures mean that no one else reading here will have anything to go on but what I have posted? Unfortunately, that is the state of affairs left here is you don't show Scriptures. Unproven teachings are like seeds that sprout later, if sown on fine soil.
OldSoul
-
61
defd, three sincere questions
by OldSoul indefd,.
on page 146 of what does the bible really teach?, the opening sentence of paragraph 6 purports to represent one of the six criteria for determining the true religion.
it reads: "god's servants base their teachings on the bible.".
-
-
OldSoul
I think defd has determined that anyone who used to agree with the Slave but now disagrees with the Slave does not deserve answers. Oddly, my request relates specifically to whether that Slave has any authority in the first place.
I suspect that if defd has been able to warn away 20 lurkers in his time here, he wil consider himself a success. I think you are right, Vitty.
[defd in soup Nazi voice] No answers for you!
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
OldSoul
Cygnus,
It is only honest research if there is no assumption we're there. They have turned around the act of observation and "identified" cause subtractively that they do not know to exist in the first place, they only hypothesize the existence of cause from perceived effects.
I have serious, and I think well-founded, problem with Science stepping outside its bounds by stating and labeling unobserved cause, then reframing in such a way that it seems they did no such thing.
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
-
-
OldSoul
I believe he sees himself as a sort of Jedi, defending us from lurkers who might be influenced by what we have to say.
OldSoul
-
30
name the bunny
by fairchild inyes, i am stuck in this game again.
i can't go on until i find the name of this character.
http://www.simplecodeworks.com/mazito-2/lobster/index.html
-
-
OldSoul
It leads to Plato, whose real name is Aristocles (but that leads to nothing).
then "click here to continue"
picks up at: http://www.simplecodeworks.com/mazito/dark/index.html
the only word that advance you to another page is "explode", I have no clue why it doesn't belong...begins with a vowel?
Aristotle's famous quote ends in "liberty"
"31, 75, 119, 1513, 1917, 2321, 2725" increases each number by 4, e.g. 3+4 is 7, 1+4 is 5 = 75, 7+4 is 11, 5+4 is 9 = 119, and so on. 27+4 is 31, 25+4 is 29 = 3129.
DEAD END
Unless I answered something wrong (entirely possible) it is a dead end faster than the other path.
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
OldSoul
Leolaia,
Not actually observed, and I call foul. Scientists set it up as though observed but that isn't what happens. We don't observe anymore, not at that level of interaction.
We interpret the perception of what they are doing by the effects created, we cannot see them. This is an example of subtractive observation only, determination of cause by observed effect is not observation of cause.
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
-
-
OldSoul
Still in
-
-
-
OldSoul
Invite them in for a nice sit-down gringojj. You are up to it.
Respectfully,
OldSoul