Primate Dave: What you just wrote is all jibberish, of course. But the JehoWatchTower really should hire you to help them with establishing new shite/new doctrine, you have some very "good" ideas......well, your stuff isn`t any worse than the old stuff, at least.
Hellrider
JoinedPosts by Hellrider
-
54
Something strange about "Christs invisible presence"...
by Hellrider insomething 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?
-
-
-
9
where in the bible god choose the WT and the GB ?
by z intomorrow im going to see my jw friend we all the time argue about the cult and must of the time he have no answer, and i think he is not too happy with the cult (he is ms) he is 41yr old and married no children (was virgin 28yr wtf).
about two weeks ago he was called to the back room why?
because he had some misunderstanding with ex alder the claim he doesnt have love for him lololol.
-
-
Hellrider
Tell your friend:
Matthew 18:19 Again, I tell you the truth, if two of you on earth agree about whatever you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you. 18:20 For where two or three are assembled in my name, I am there among them.”
Not "where thousands of people are gathered at a district convention as members of an organisation in which the members during baptising swears loyalty to the organisation, I am among them".
It`s pretty simple, really. A couple of guys in a room talking about Jesus and christianity and stuff. Jesus is right there.
-
102
Absolute truths have been admitted....
by Shining One ini 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
What are the absolute truths we should be aware of. I accept that there may be absolute truths, but I in my ignorance dont know of any
Use your imagination: Think about the crimes of this world that are inexcusable...Really, people who are unable to understand that there are some moral absolutes, really have a poor sense of imagination. I hate to do this, because thinking about such things turns most peoples stomachs, mine included, but imagine this: A grown man abducts a 4-year-old girl from a playground. He takes her to a forest, rapes her, sodomises her, burns her with cigarettes, beats her half to death, pisses on her, then strangles her, and dumps her body in a dumpster.
This is what we are talking about here. These things happen all over the world, probably on a daily basis. No matter what the grown man have experienced in his life, there is no excuse for his actions. What he did was wrong, wrong, wrong, and can never be excused. Although I can see that even murder can sometimes be excused, premeditated murder of an innocent, defenseless individual, is wrong, and that is a moral absolute. The same goes for rape, at least in the cases in which a man attacks a woman in the dark in a park, drags her into the bushes, and rapes her. The same goes for many cases involving robbery and theft too. I am not talking about the poor, unemplyed man with a family to feed, who steals some money or food to feed his family. That can be excused. But when a wealthy person steals, cheats or robs to become even wealthier, then he is violating a moral absolute. Of course, in this last example, we are entering a moral "greyzone". The same is the case in a bar fight, in which two guys start figthing because of what the one guy said, and then during the fight, one of them falls over, hits his head on a chair and dies. Then we are also in the "greyzone". There are a million greyzones. The greyzone-area is very large. But still, when looking at the most extreme examples (such as the first one I portrayed), it should be evident to all people that there is a core of morality, a "senter", a leading, universal principle that should be evident to all people, of all cultures, races and nationalities. If there is not, then why is there a section on this board for sexual abuse? Why do we have laws against such things? Laws against murder and rape? If it was just a matter of protecting society from dangerous individuals, why not send them to a desert island with a great hotel, swimming pool, tennis court, bar etc? Why punish them, if what they did was not morally wrong?
The answer to your question lies also in the motive of the person committing the act. But I understand why this is a difficult question. Greyzones can be very confusing.
-
102
Absolute truths have been admitted....
by Shining One ini 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
Narkissos:
I understand what you are saying (I think), but some things puzzles me. The thing is, I have always looked at it like this (and I`m gonna step back in time now to the age of 17 when these things puzzled me): Some of the things said about morals, right and wrong etc, thruout the NT, are easy to accept, easy to agree with, such as "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "judge not" and 1Corinthians 13 etc...but then I always felt that all the bad stuff, such as Abraham taking his son up the mountain just because God was feeling down and needed someone to prove that they loved him () and all the killing in the OT in general, and also the stupid, stupid things, such as the dietary laws, were just stuff that whoever wrote it just messed up. I guess I was thinking of it in terms of "this isn`t Gods word, it`s the human writing it that inserted it". But are you saying that even the good stuff has a different motive than ethics? That when Jesus is saying that the Law is summed up by love for God and love for thy neighbour, then the authors motive here is not ethics?
Kierkegaard clearly separates the "ethical" from the "religious" and shows (especially with the example of Abraham accepting to sacrifice his son) ;that stepping from the former to the latter involves a "suspension of ethics". Reducing religion to morals (a permanent temptation) ;results in denying its very essence imo.
Yes, I agree that religion is much more than, and goes beyond morals. The religion goes beyond scripture, the scripture that is written in the heart. And that`s the part about it all, that I didn`t like, I guess (should have read some Kierkegaard when I was 17, maybe). -
102
Absolute truths have been admitted....
by Shining One ini 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
LT:
I'm going to have to dispute point 2, Terry, as it seems a little too ego-centric for my tastes.
"Ask not what can be done for you, but what you can do for others" (de-nationalised paraphrase).
A short and miserable life still has the potential to enhance that of others, and maybe even mankind. Look at all the young composers, etc., who died young and in conditions that today we would call squalor. Methinks I'd prefer that to a long and indolent life, neh?
Yes, I disagree with his point2 also. The whole concept of morality is that all life is of the same value. Terrys view results in the million same old inconsistencies utilitarianism has always become trapped in. What is a short and miserable life, Terry? And what is a "happy life"? Who decides whether a life is miserable? And who decides whether a "miserable life" is less worth living than a "happy life"? You? Because you wouldn`t like being miserable? Or the one who is actually miserable? The point is: It has nothing to do with potential! Even Bill Gates with all his money that he is giving to charity, is no more worth than the poor little 3-year-old Somalian girl, starving to death in a refugee camp. Because, if we were to believe that Bill Gates was "worth more", then the logical conclusion to that would be to allow the 3-year-old girl (and all the other poor, starving people in this world) to starve away, die and be done with it. Then Bill Gates could use his money contributing to increasing the happiness of the rest of us, who are actually allready ok and well off (but not as well of as Bill Gates). Terry:
As General Patton once said rather succinctly: No poor dumb bastard ever served his country by dying for it. You serve your country by making the other poor dumb bastard die for HIS country. :) In a nutshell that is a very practical view.
Ah yes. And without all the poor, dumb bastards who died for the general and for the allied effort during WW2, we would be speaking german all over Europe today. Oh, and tens of millions east-Europeans would have been "relocated" to the mass graves, as well as the rest of the jews, gypsys and homosexuals. No war is fought and won without casualties even on your own team. And those "casualties" have had lives, names, family, dreams, hopes. And they gave all that away for a higher purpose, for something good and right. Following your logic, what they did when they gave up their lives, was shear stupidity. -
54
Something strange about "Christs invisible presence"...
by Hellrider insomething 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 Moggylover. I know very little about the greek stuff, but even I understood that, once you explained it. Ah, if only JWs were told about these things...
I know we are drifting away from your post, but indulge me a little.
No worries there, I`m all for drifting away from the original post...I just refer to it as "new light".
-
49
John 8:3-11
by Zico in3the teachers of the law and the pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.
they made her stand before the group 4and said to jesus, "teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5in the law moses commanded us to stone such women.
-
-
Hellrider
The JehoWatchtower is very good at using scholarly, modern material when it comes to erazing things from the NT that they don`t like. When it comes to what they do like (for example such as showing the Jehovah-name into every other sentence in the NT although it never was there in the first place), they couldn`t give a flying prophet about "modern scholarship". They are very interesting people (in a kind of sickening, repulsive way).
-
54
Something strange about "Christs invisible presence"...
by Hellrider insomething 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
Moggy Lover:
Remember that the discussion regarding the "Parousia" of Christ mentioned in Matt 24:3 is in fact an answer that Christ to a question posed by the disciples. They asked: What will be the sign of your Parousia?
Have you checked that the word in the text there is "parousia"? If so, then that`s a pretty solid argument you got there!
-
102
Absolute truths have been admitted....
by Shining One ini 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
Narkissos:
I feel the original thrust of the NT to be strongly amoral -- from the Pauline "salvation by faith not works" to the Gospels' "do not judge," ;"do not resist evil" or;"the first will be the last".
I realise that "salvation by faith not works" has been the leading principle in protestant christianity. But until Luther had that epiphany about the translation of "salvation" from the greek, christianity had a different view on this, for 1400 years, wouldn`t you agree? And in my opinion, when the Gospels say that Jesus said "do not judge" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" etc, then these commands are expressions of what I would call "universal, eternal ethical standards" (or whatever). To command the followers to not be judgmental, is to say that it is wrong to be judgmental, and right not to be judgmental. Jesus didn`t say: "well, in my opinion..."
Also, your presentation of the view on "salvation by faith not work" here is a bit simplified, in my opinion...It`s true that Paul teached that salvation depended on faith and not work/deeds, but he never said that a christian could kill, rape and rob as much as he`d like. I think he mentions somewhere that the christian (who is saved by faith) will automatically also do "good deeds". And in Romans 2:14-15, Paul makes it clear that he believes in universal, etchial moral codes. The Law (a cut-down version, at least) is written in the heart of even the gentiles. So the work follows the faith. I believe Pauls point was that you can/will be saved by faith alone, despite whether or not you are able to live up to the moral standards. Not that behaviour is unimportant, but it is secondary to the faith, as he saw good deeds as the fruits of the faith, while faith could never be the fruits of the work.
-
43
Let cut JWs some slack on Christ's status. They might be right.
by Spectrum inthe alternative light i have received regarding early christianity has made me wonder whether jws have unwittingly got it right regarding the status of jesus.
a lot of strong criticism is made on this forum about jws sidelining of jesus in preference for jehovah the jewish god.
they have been equated with judaism because of their lack of inclusion of christ in their worship as well as their draconian code of expected conduct.
-
-
Hellrider
The question is also: when did christianity start? Did it start when Jesus preached, or when he died? Should only the gospels have been included in the NT? The gospel of John too? He is pretty much a god-man in that gospel, not to mention that it was written at least no earlier than 50 years after his death... And about Paul, some of his letters predates the Gospels, probably even Mark. I think it`s impossible to take the view that the New Testament was "corrupted", because that leads to so many problems. Who decides what is the real doctrine, then, if we are to assume that "some of the books, pages, chapters doesn`t belong in the Bible"? Who decides? I think, for a christian it is just to trust that God put the right text in there. Otherwise, at which year do you set the "heresy"? In 80 A.D? 120 A.D? Even if it`s true that James and the Jerusalem church held on to the Mosaic Law and were still more jewish than what would later be called "christian", who are to say that they were right in how they interpreted Jesus? Maybe the development that followed with Paul was Gods will?
There are a million questions, but not many answers.