Posts by Hellrider

54

Something strange about "Christs invisible presence"...

by Hellrider in

something just occured to me: .

we all know that "parousia" doesn`t mean "invisble presence" at all, it just means "presence", but think about the inlogical...ness about the whole jw-doctrine on 1914. my question is: what is jesus` job really, up there in heaven?

- he "took reign" and was "given the throne" in 1914. but what does that mean, really?

Hellrider

LoL, it looks like a jw finally showed up to defend the doctrine.

Nice going, jws!

102

Absolute truths have been admitted....

by Shining One in

i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.

most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.

instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.

Hellrider

Jgnat:

And, by the way, here's the link to the original argument.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/114229/1.ashx
So readers can judge for themselves who is confused.

I looked at Rex`s posts in that thread (the link), and I agree, that was not so good. In that thread, he went beyond the issue in this thread, and started talking about marriage for gays etc, things that are (in my opinion) man-made moral laws, under the disguise of coming from God. I agree that Rex messed up in that thread, because he believes that these ethical standards applies also to such things as homosexuality, etc, and I don`t agree with that. But in this thread he went straight to the core of this issue, and I happen to agree with one of the premisses (that there is such a thing as "universal, objective, ethical standards"). But I really can`t understand why you are arguing against him in this thread. What he said in this thread was not offending to anyone, and he presented an argument for the existence of God. I happen to believe that he is wrong, and that the existence of universal ethical standards is not (in my opinion) sufficient proof for God. However, I understand his argument. But you, on the other hand, why are you mocking him in this thread? He offended noone, and furthermore, you are a self-professed christian, are you not? As a christian, you are supposed to believe in the universal ethical standards he (and myself) claims are there. The way I see it, you can dismiss the argument as being a good argument for the existence of God, but you can`t (as a christian) dismiss that there are universal, ethical standards.

102

Absolute truths have been admitted....

by Shining One in

i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.

most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.

instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.

Hellrider

IP_SEC:

Morals are only absolute if they are defined as such by a society as they are a construct of that society. They are usually based on whether or not an action is harmful or helpful; destructive or constructive within that society as well as the edicts of whatever religous tome they may follow.

That means that nothing is really wrong. What is "destructive"? What is "constructive" (within your view)? What is destructive to one person, may be totally cool for another person. For example, within your view, we would have to admit that there was nothing wrong with nazi-Germany: We may feel now, 60 years later, that killing all those jews, gypsys and homosexuals, was a bad thing. But to them, to that society as a whole, in which an overwhelming part shared Hitlers views in the 20s and early 30s (44% voted for him in 1933), and even more shared his views in the late 30s (after a bit of indoctrination and persuasion), whiping out the unwanted may have been a good thing. Within your view, it surely would have been a good thing (for them, in your view, that`s what it`s all about, for them), at least if they had won the war. Of course, the fact that you are now probably repulsed by my last statement, shows that you don`t really believe what you just wrote, you just don`t know it yet. There are so much wrong with your statement that I don`t even know where to begin.

102

Absolute truths have been admitted....

by Shining One in

i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.

most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.

instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.

Hellrider

Rex:

You got no replies yet. I can`t say that I`m surprised, because this is a very difficult question. Actually, what you presented here, is what I see as the most convincing argument for the existence of God (but still not...all the way, I`ll get to that in a minute). Yes, I agree with you, in the first half of your post. I believe in absolute moral standards. I believe some things are right and some things are wrong. This should be clear to all of us, if we use the most extreme examples. No, it is not always wrong to kill. If someone attacks you, and you defend yourself, you are not doing anything wrong if the other person dies. But premeditated murder, an attack on a defenseless individual, is just plain wrong, always was and always will be. We are all disgusted and outraged when we once in a while hear about some sick pedophile who abducted, raped and murdered a child. It can never be excused, it is just pure evil. If we were to accept a subjectivist moral-view, then it would not really be wrong, it would just be "wrong" for the innocent person/persons that it affected, such as the victim, the victims family, and possibly even the society around it/them, who heared about it, and became outraged/frustrated/sick to their stomach. It would be "wrong" to society only in the sense that it caused us all to feel pain/disgust. But it wouldn`t be wrong beyond that. And that is why it should be clear to everyone that a subjectivist view on morality is not acceptable. So yes, I accept the premiss, I believe in universal, objective ethical standars.

But does this mean that God necessarily exists? Like I said, I see this as the most compelling argument for the existence of God...but not quite... Your argument is that these universal, objective standards have to come from somewhere. I disagree with that, because the same could also be said about God. This whole scenario only gets us to the old enigma: The first cause! If someone created the world, then who created this "someone". A higher God? Ok, who created that God then? You know where this leads to... But why not accept that these objective, eternal ethical standards are there, and why can`t they themselves be God? I know that this is a heretical thought to you, Rex, but this really is, per se, not any more inlogical than the belief in a God, a "first cause". Believing in God doesn`t really get us any further to "the truth" than accepting these universal ethical values. It really doesn`t, because there is no reason to invent (?) a cause that is equally unexplainable as the phenomena that we are attempting to explain! Always remember Ockhams razor. Do not try to attribute any more reasons to explain a phenomena than necessary...

But I truly enjoyed your post. I have tried many times to explain to people why the subjectivist, nihilist view on morals and ethics not only is repulsive, but also that it simply doesn`t work! You put your finger on something important here.

6

Who is Jesus ?

by moomanchu in

why didn't jesus just tell us who he was ?

i am michael the archangel from heaven.

what's the big secret?.

Hellrider

moggy lover:

I think we are going to have to change your question to: Who was Jesus? Because remember the man Jesus died and passed off into non-existence. So the guy who is alive now is one who was recreated by joehoover using his "memory" of what the original was supposed to be.
The odd thing is that this new guy did not die for us, since the one who did no longer exists.

That`s a very good point, but this confusion only arises when looking at it via JW-doctrine. It`s not a problem for the rest of christianity. JWs believe he was recreated, because "ressurection" (as a spirit being or in the flesh, doesn`t matter) without something surviving from the original person, is recreation, as opposed to ressurection. The rest of christianity believes something survives from the person (they call it the "soul", but that becomes confusing, as the Bible refers to "the soul" as the entire being, and it refers to the "spirit" when it says something about what we now call "the soul...) survives. And they believe Jesus was ressurected, but are not specific about what form. But yes, it is a huge problem within JW-"theology", yes, but that doesn`t matter to the "great crowd", they are not supposed to think to much about these things... (

Not that I`m a christian or anything, but I certainly feel that the rest of christianity got it right on this one.

And Jesus is not Michael the archangel. There has been numerous threads about this. In Revelation it becomes clear that they are two distinct characters.

34

Your personality is IN your Blood!

by gumby in

did you guys know that?

yes-sir -e folks....says right here in jehovahs word...the watchtower.. "using life in harmony with the will of god" .

(watchtower 9/15/1961, pages 564) .

Hellrider

LoL. You know, one really shitty part about all of this crap they are writing, is that young kids actually start believing it. Many times, I said things in school which I had learned from Awake. I made such a fool of myself. Like about the mammoth they had found with gras still in his mouth, I mentioned instant freesing in the flood, ha ha . No wonder witness-kids are considered to be weirdos. Well, I guess, the saddest part is that the people who write this crap, are adults, and still actually believe it.

54

Something strange about "Christs invisible presence"...

by Hellrider in

something just occured to me: .

we all know that "parousia" doesn`t mean "invisble presence" at all, it just means "presence", but think about the inlogical...ness about the whole jw-doctrine on 1914. my question is: what is jesus` job really, up there in heaven?

- he "took reign" and was "given the throne" in 1914. but what does that mean, really?

Hellrider

LoL. That is from...your own wedding cake, Gumby? You got married in ...Amsterdam?

21

Dubs and witchcraft

by kittyeatzjdubs in

does anyone remember the awake (or was it watchtower?

) article that the borg put out about witchcraft?

i remember the picture of the women dancing on the front cover in front of the alter w/ the pentagram and everything on it.

Hellrider

It's funny now though, b/c it just goes to show how immature most dubs can be.

She had been taught to believe that all such things are from the devil himself. No wonder she was mad. My mother believed fully in a demonic-possession-story from our congregation: One of the "sisters" had experienced having an egg jump out of the egg carton and started frying itself on her kitchen table (she had an unbelieving husband, of course, who had even been to Africa and had African masks hanging on the wall in the livingroom, which were obviously posessed by demons, which explains the whole thing). My mother believed that fully. Of course it is immature. But that`s because they are members of a cult that encourages extreme stupidity and immaturity. In many ways, they are like children, excited about things they cannot see, but that they, in their overactive imagination, are convinced exists. It`s sad, but also very funny (in an even sadder kind of way...)

54

Something strange about "Christs invisible presence"...

by Hellrider in

something just occured to me: .

we all know that "parousia" doesn`t mean "invisble presence" at all, it just means "presence", but think about the inlogical...ness about the whole jw-doctrine on 1914. my question is: what is jesus` job really, up there in heaven?

- he "took reign" and was "given the throne" in 1914. but what does that mean, really?

Hellrider

Thanks for the replies, all. No jws showed up to defend the doctrine yet, I wonder why...

I guess what puzzles me is: If Jesus was invisble in heaven for 1900 years before 1914, and he was, you know, Gods favorite angel, the first one he created (according to the jw-view), along with his rebel-brother Lucifer, then what is the difference between Jesus status before and after 1914? He was invisble both before and after, and he was Gods favorite both before and after, and he wasn`t the top dog, neither before nor after (Jehovah is, as he decides when to send the angel-armies to kill us all). So, what`s the difference?

I guess Jesus`status (according to the jw-view) is best compared with some of the puppet-dictators in South-America in the 70s and 80s. Yes, they were the "boss" in their countries, but not really, the U.S. were the ones that really made the decisions. Actually, I don`t think Jesus can be considered to be even that high on the ladder, in the JW-view.

She looked at me with a mixture of anger and horror and declared that perhaps I needed a ~~threatening visit~~ shepperding call to ~~scare the ;shit out of me~~ readjust my thinking

LoL. Yes, the horror-look. I used to get that a lot. Ah, those were the days...

54

Something strange about "Christs invisible presence"...

by Hellrider in

something just occured to me: .

we all know that "parousia" doesn`t mean "invisble presence" at all, it just means "presence", but think about the inlogical...ness about the whole jw-doctrine on 1914. my question is: what is jesus` job really, up there in heaven?

- he "took reign" and was "given the throne" in 1914. but what does that mean, really?

Hellrider

Something just occured to me:

We all know that "parousia" doesn`t mean "invisble presence" at all, it just means "presence", but think about the inlogical...ness about the whole jw-doctrine on 1914. My question is: What is Jesus` job really, up there in heaven?

- He "took reign" and was "given the throne" in 1914. But what does that mean, really? What is it he "commands" over? He is not the commander in chief over when "Armageddon" is about to happen, his dad decides that. So what does he do all day? Command over the angels? Do they really need someone to hold them in check? I don`t think so, as they are all "good" angels, and obey God. Does he "rule over the earth"? Nope, Satan was given the right to do whatever he wanted to on the earth, so Jesus stays away, I guess. What "practical" tasks is it that Christ really has as the boss (and not even the boss, he is just the under-boss) in heaven? And does he really have the power? Isn`t Jehovah still the supreme boss? Isn`t he the one that decides when Armageddon is gonna break loose? So what does it mean, really, when jws believe that "Christ took the throne in 1914"? And one more thing: If Christ was given the throne in 1914, does that mean that his dad "stepped down"? If so, then why are the jws not worshipping Christ? Why do they only sing about, pray to and talk about his dad? And if big papa stepped down, why does he still have the right to decide everything important? (Like when A is coming, etc)...

JWs are welcome to respond.