You mean the cat was droolin' over kittens?.
Randy sod.
'Ave him desexed I'd say.
moggy lover
JoinedPosts by moggy lover
-
19
Man Blames Cat For Child Pornography Images On His Computer
by minimus inhe told detectives in martin county, florida that his cat would jump around on his keyboard and that's the reason over 1000 images were downloaded of child pornography!
the 48 year old man couldn't understand how it happened either!!
!.
-
-
-
53
How Would You Prove That Abstaining From Blood Is Not Prohibiting Transfusions?
by minimus inlast night my grandson got a blood transfusion.
it occured to me how stupid the belief is that to "abstain from blood" refers to a transfusion.
how would you reason with someone to show that abstaining from blood would not refer to accepting a blood transfusion?.
-
-
moggy lover
Unfortunately this is a complex issue and cannot be resolved simply by reading Acts 15:29, and then extrapolating from that one text an injunction against blood transfusions. There are issues of exegesis that become involved, and this leads to interpretation which itself has to include various problems of context. For instance, who were being addressed by the abstinence order of this verse? All Christians? No. The letter that was to be circulated among the various Christian congregations of that time only referred to Gentile Christians. Thus whatever Acts 15:29 means it applied at a certain moment in time, to a certain section of Christians that existed at that time.
The problems of exegesis are therefore contextually interwoven around several subtext issues which thus makes interpreting this section of Acts intensely difficult. There are various points of delineation that need to be addressed:
1 What does "apecho" translated as "abstain" mean? Is it purely a dietary term involving the ingesting of fluids into the body? The fact that it is used with "idolatry" and "fornication" shows that it has a range of meanings extending to conditions beyond the human digestive system. For this reason several mainline conservative scholars believe that "abstaining from blood" takes in, not only the need to refrain from taking into the body but to avoid any contact with blood whatever. Thus abstaining from blood can, using "abstaining from idolatry" as a locus, mean also "abstaining from spilling blood.
2 How many prohibitions are listed in vs 29? Three? or Four? The Watchtower has always assumed that it was four: Idolatry, blood, strangled meat, and fornication. But this ignores the use of the Greek "kai" which Freddy Franz, Watchtower wunderkind, translated as "and". Lets digress a moment, and look at this little word:
How many groups are sighted as being in heaven in Rev 20:4? Two, if you take "kai" to mean "and" as in:1 Those who sat on thrones [acc to Wt theology= 144000] AND 2 Those who were Great Tribulation martyrs. In order for Franz to make only one group appear in heaven this is how he manipulated the word "kai": "Those who sat on thrones, YES, the great Tribulation martyrs.
Now lets look at Acts 15:29, paying attention to how we can apply "kai", 1 idolatry and 2 blood, yes, strangled animals 3 fornication. We can see from this that the the list of prohibitions may actually have been three, not four. This is in fact favoured by a majority of interpreters. [See Bible Knowledge Commentary - pg 395] If this is the case then the prohibition against blood is purely a dietary issue, referring back to Gen 9, where blood should be drained from an animal before eating, and has nothing to do with medical ethics and practice.
3 Were these prohibitions to be permanent? According to the Watchtower they were. But others are not so sure.
Again remember that these prohibitions were legislated when an issue occurred in the Primitive Church: a threatened split in the Church caused by the two divisions of Jewish and Gentile Christians. As long as that division persisted, the letter sent out to Gentile Christians asking THEM [not the Jewish section] to observe 15:29 would be in force. [See vs 19, where Freddy referred to the addressees as "those of the nations" Most intelligible translations read: "Those among the Gentiles" NASB]
By the 21st century, when this division is no longer prevalent, the issue addressing that division is correspondingly irrelevant.
By the time the Bible canon was completed, and distributed, especially the Pauline corpus which was written some thirty years and more after this event, True Christians would have a complete record of God's will on the subject. Especially relevant would be Rom 14. Where Acts 15:29 was a blanket prohibition for Gentile believers, now Paul reveals that a measure of conscience becomes involved, and Christians, whatever their ethnic background, should learn to flex their theological sinews in making their own decisions.
Also curiously enough, Acts 15 was relevant at a time when such things as "prophets" as a unique sub group were still current in the Church [Acts 15:32] When this office would pass away as the Watchtower insists that it would, the relevance of this part of the Bible would be in its historical content, not prohibitive analysis.
Thus Acts 15 is by no means so inflexible a construct that it requires only one authorized and censured version of interpretation. Christians have long discovered something that the arrogant strangers to God's word who fraudulently pose as God's exclusive spokesmen in the Watchtower, have not. And this is to tolerate and accept various possible permutations of evidence, all of which are based on sound biblical exegesis.
Back then we can see the loving reaction of the two groups within Christianity. The decision made at the Jerusalem involved doctrinal and practical matters. Jewish Christians agreed doctrinally to drop the need for circumcision, and the Gentiles agreed to adopt certain moral and dietary codes that they previously had had. The principle today is the same. We must accept differing opinions, knowing that no one or no group possesses absolute truth.
We must all struggle with biblical revelation, and whether such things as blood transfusions have any connection, no matter how tenuous with Acts 15 becomes moot, not inscribed in stone. Most intelligent Christians would consider it foolish to hang so much, including a possible danger to ones life or ones loved, on a circumstance that involves interpretation of a complex Bible passage..
-
53
How Would You Prove That Abstaining From Blood Is Not Prohibiting Transfusions?
by minimus inlast night my grandson got a blood transfusion.
it occured to me how stupid the belief is that to "abstain from blood" refers to a transfusion.
how would you reason with someone to show that abstaining from blood would not refer to accepting a blood transfusion?.
-
-
-
-
-
moggy lover
It is part of the double talk that makes up Watchtower gobbledygook.
Those who "profess" to be Christians are false Christians.
Those who "profess" to be of the Other Sheep are "true" Christians.
Those who "profess" to be of the "anointed" are weirdos
Go figure.
-
44
Animals living forever
by startingover indoes anyone know?
did jw's ever believe that animals will live forever in the paradise?
i was having a discussion with a jw friend and he said they did..
-
-
moggy lover
You mean the elders aren't already, lobotomized I mean? And the anonymous writers of the literature?
The literature is a perfect example of lobotomized writers simply writing to arrive at preconceived conclusions rather than presenting a logical and objective submission of evidence.
-
10
ROMANS 8:18-25 PROVES 2 CLASS WT TEACHING.. SAYS THE WIFE
by whereami incan someone help me here?.
maybe narkissos or laolaia can help?.
.
-
-
moggy lover
I'm not entirely sure what point your wife is attempting to make by quoting Ro 8:18-25, but it can't be to establish that there are two classes of Christian believers, because this is certainly not being discussed here.
Chap 8 of Romans is a discussion of what True Christians call the Doctrine of Sanctification and the specific role that the Holy Spirit plays in this regard. From vs1 to about vs 25 Paul discusses the believer's bondage to sin and its attendant trait- death. Before the believer became a believer he/she was a slave to sin, and consequently walked according to the flesh, which is a path that leads to death. [vss 1-6] However through the grace of God, He has imparted to the believer the Holy Spirit, who by indwelling the believer impels him/her to walk according to the spirit and consequently to life. Unforttunately the Watchtower knows nothing about this doctrine of the In-dwelling Spirit.
When the Holy Spirit thus dwells in the believer [vs 11] He brings about the miraculous work of redefining the believer according to the ways of the Spirit and not the flesh. This in turn leads to the believer being adopted as a "Son Of God" and like any child who is privileged to inherit the estate of the parent, the believer becomes an heir of God and fellow heir of Christ. [vs 17]
Now in all this section there is only one "class" of believer mentioned. This "class" is referred to in the first person plural personal pronoun: "us" or "we". The Christian believer cannot read this section, as Watchtower followers do, and apply the third person pronoun: "they" "them" to the text. Either you read it and believe, or you don't read it. But to read it and apply it opportunistically, and selectively, simply because of a precognitive requirement of Watchtower theology is to make a mockery of the Word of God. Having constantly being fed on the monotonous and propagandizing literature of the Watchtower, the Watchtower follower has this remarkable ability to apportion sections of scripture to make it apply as and when it aligns with Watchtower theology. Ultimately that is the epitome of Watchtower success in brainwashing.
For instance the Watchtower follower will read vs 12 which says: "We are under obligation not to live in accord with the flesh" and the "we" bit refers to the individual Watchtower follower, but mystically, this "we" by some arcane mutation, transmutes into "them" just three vss further. Thus a dichotomy is strained out of the text and forced into a preconceived mould to prop up Watchtower theology.
We now come to vss 18-25. For reasons that Paul does not specify, not just humanity and the terrestrial abode we all inhabit, but all the physical universe became enmeshed in this decline into decay and corruption, with the whole "creation" being subject to "futility" not of its own accord, but simply because God subjected it to this dissolution. Thus slowly, not just all humanity, but all creation is dying, and slowly running down.
The expression in vs 19, "eager expectation" [NW "T"] "anxious longing" [NASB] is from the Greek "apek-dech-omai" and is used seven times in the NT and every time refers to Christ's Coming Again [Ro 8:19, 23,25, 1Cor 1:7, Gal 5:5, Phil 3:20, and Heb 9:28]. Thus,"we" the regenerated [born again] sons of God, will be "revealed" when Christ returns for His own. "We" will share His glory, but always as inferiors, and all creation will be restored to its pristine glory as originally envisioned by God. All hope then, not just for "us" but all physical creation, rests not in some "kingdom" or the "vindication of Yahweh's name" but in Christ coming again. Physically, tangibly, corporeally, and personally.
As can be seen then there is only two classes mentioned in Ro 8:
1 "We" who are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and made "sons of God" by adoption. [8:16]
2 Those who are in the flesh. These ones cannot please God. [8:8]
Unfortunately for Watchtower followers there is NO third group. Those who are in the flesh, but who because they prostate themselves before the "spirit-directed" organization, can please God.
-
49
Debunking the WTS view of apostasy
by Awakened at Gilead injust created a new video that uses the bible to show how jw's claims about apostates lack biblical basis.. your comments are welcome.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eg219nkire.
.
-
-
moggy lover
The problem that we have when discussing "apostasy" and "apostates" is twofold:
1 Who can lay claim to being the true inheritors of the ancient Jewish tradition that is encompassed in the OT?
2 Does the word "apostate" as understood in the the stylized patois of the Watchtower, actually occur in the OT? [There is no problem about it occurring in the NT because we know it occurs twice]
1 To suggest, as the Watchtower leadership suggests, that they and they alone can singularly wrap themselves around the mantle of the OT is not just sheer arrogance, but it spills over into the ancient Greek concept of "hubris", defined in their vocabulary as: "wanton arrogance that leads to violence against opposers, an insufferable arrogance accrued from claims to divine exclusivity" [paraphrased from Liddell and Scott Lexicon] In other words, anyone making claims of such insularity is dangerously bordering on blasphemy.
To make these claims solely on the basis of their use of the tri-syllabic mongrelized word "jehovah" which has an etymology that is neither Hebrew nor English, is puerile to say the least, especially when you consider the fact that there are several Sacred Name sects out there, most of whom are more closely linked to the OT system than the Watchtower, and whose use of Yahweh is more accurate than anything the Watchtower can match.
The Watchtower system is a proto-fascist ideal which replaces the freedom that the individual has with God, with a centrally controlled organizationally infused dynamic that supposedly serves the interests of all. Such an imperialism may be regarded as benevolent by the majority of the more somnolent of the movement, but nevertheless it is still an imposition, a manifestation of raw power. Dissenting from such systematized and institutionalized piety, is regarded as apostasy only by those cocooned in the veiled facade of Watchtower doctrinal probity.
It must also be remembered that the Watchtower leadership expresses its authority in a modern Americanized jargon with its metaphors derived from the American pop culture of the 1960s, and not from OT idiom. No Sabbath is observed, no tithes paid, and no festivals observed, all part of the warp and woof of OT cultural idiom. The Watchtower links to the OT, then, are tenuous, at best. So any "apostate" from the OT system must be a subject of interpretation, not of pre-cognitive functional subjectivity.
2 Should the word "apostate" or "apostasy" occur in the OT? The Watchtower wunderkind, Freddy Franz, whose legacy, the NW "T" is constantly being defended by his successors, certainly thought so. He introduced it 16 times in his "translation" of the OT. All these occurrences are from the Heb word "hho'neph" and its cognates. The word is clearly defined by Strong, Gesenius, and BDB as: Impiety, godlessness.
The NIV consistently translates this word as: "Ungodliness" as does the NASB. The NLT has the same.
As one can see, the use of "apostasy" in the OT, so useful to facilitating the Watchtower agenda of self-righteous posturing is entirely bogus. An "apostate" is one who has abandoned a certain regimentation which either he or his peers once regarded as "truth", while the OT word is referring to those who never had any spiritual dimension in their lives in the first place and who cared nothing about it anyway.
It is matter of scholarly debate whether the Heb vocabulary, as used in the OT had a word for "apostasy". The NASB for instance uses the word "apostasy" four times in the OT to translate the Heb "Meshubah" the meaning of which is interpretive. It can mean "faithlessness" or a"a turning away" etc, as is found at Jer 8:5. NIV has "turned away" and the NW "T" has "unfaithful" To confuse matters, Greek speaking Jews who translated the OT into the Greek LXX, used the word "apostrepso" which can mean "to return" as to an original fold, or lit, as Adam "returned" to dust. The debate continues.
The Watchtower appropriation of this word to refer to those who dissent from their structural authorization, is at least pretentious, if not, utterly mad.
-
19
More than 144,000 by end of 1st Century? Reference sought.
by Open mind inthe search function here isn't what it used to be.. can anyone direct me to a reference that shows christianity grew to more than 144,000 converts by 98 ce?.
intuitively it seems like a no-brainer, but something better than gut instinct would be helpful.. om.
.
-
-
moggy lover
There is simply no way that we can give anything more than a vague estimate of Christian numbers by the end of the 1C AD. At least one ancient document in our possession tells of the growth in numbers of Christians, and this was written some years before the end of the century by Pliny the Younger the Governor of the Roman province of Bithynia to Emperor Trajan.
"Many of every age and social class and even of both sexes are being called to trial. Not just the cities but villages and even rural areas have been invaded by the infection of their superstition" [Epistulae 10.96] Although he does not report any numbers, his reference to the presence of Christians throughout the Province implies a recognizable status given to this persecuted minority. It must also be remembered that Bithynia was one of the more remote provinces of Empire, and is therefore suggestive of growth in even greater numbers elsewhere. Although as the NT shows Christianity started as an urban phenomenon, it soon grew by increments and missionary activity to the countryside and involved all sections of society.
Dr Samuele Bacchiocchi writing in the Andrews University historical site has estimated that by the end of the 1C AD the population of Christians had grown to about 1% of the population of the Empire, which was in the region of 100M-180M. This would place the numbers of Christians living then to about 1M. The World Christian Encyclopedia [published in 1982] confirmed this number by suggesting a more precise percentage of .6% of the Empire's population.
The phenomenal growth of Christianity, which as we have seen has been attested to by at least one contemporary historian of the 1C AD, can probably be attributed to two factors, one of which is not acknowledged by the academic community. The first of these was, of course persecution, including the one by Domitian toward the end of the C AD which, incidentally, caused John's exile to Patmos. The other is the role of the Holy Spirit whose Divine Providence oversaw the growth of believers in Christ.
By Acts chap 3 the numbers of believers had grown from 120 to 3000 [what is that? 450% increase?] Then, just one chapter later, in Acts 4:4 we are told of a further 5000 men who were baptised. We would need to factor in at least the same number of women who are not named, making some extra 10 000 in this short time. This means that within the passage of days of the founding of the Christian community we are having to deal with at least 13 000 people who became believers. To suggest, as the Watchtower suggests that somehow this miraculous growth ceased at this time and numbers were more prosaic, is to misread the authority of the Holy Spirit. And it is to manipulate not just the miraculous in the early years of Christianity, which the Watchtower supposedly recognizes, but is also a deliberate attempt at fiddling with figures merely to prop up a doctrinal aberration.
According to the Watchtower's own ignorant theology an "apostasy" developed at the turn of the first century leading to countless people having given their lives in vain during monstrous persecutions of extreme brutality. Only an estimated 10% of those torn asunder by wild animals and gladiators is suggested to be a true number of real believers. This is but a barbaric reaction to the memory of people whose blood has stained the pages of history, and reflects the same monstrous attitude that was manifest by the bloodthirsty spectators who had no sensitivity to the death of others. Whatever the Cause, giving one's life for it makes one a True Believer.
Countless Muslims have been killed by Hindus, and countless more Hindus have been slain by countless other Muslims all in the name of Belief. Whether we acknowledge the verity of such belief or not, acknowledgment must be made at the absolute commitment of belief, of those who permit their blood to be poured out. No amount of idiotic gainsaying, in the name of dogmatic bigotry can erase that depth of commitment.
For the Watchtower, the figures simply do not add up.
-
23
News flash !!!!!! ......"Blondie completes another year "
by caliber init's her birthday folks ... let her know how you feel !.
.
-
-
moggy lover
Hope you have a lovely day
Cheers
-
32
How do you respond to the JW statement: "The First Century had congregations, preaching, Elders, Servants, C.O.'s, and so do we!
by BonaFide inwell?.
.
bf.
-
-
moggy lover
Did the 1C AD have congregations? Yes. So that is not the right question. The right question to ask is:
How were the congregations arranged? Were they hierarchical as the Watchtower congregations are today? No. There is every evidence in the NT that each congregation was an independent unit with its own locally elected elders. The congregations were scattered communities of believers in Christ whose common bond was a love for each other that came as a result of being "in Christ"
Did they have elders? Yes. But again the question is: How were these elders appointed?
At 1 Tim :1-7 Paul gave an outline of what qualified a man to be an elder. These instructions were given to Timothy, who was himself an elder evidently in the city of Ephesus. [1Tim 1:3] so that when he came to appoint them he would know what these qualifications were. In turn, as this letter was distributed among the congregations, the local elders would have these instructions. To conclude that Paul was an elistist member of a "GB" is an absurd allusion that has no reccomendations from the NT. Timothy himself had been appointed by the older men of his congregation by the laying on of hands [1 Tim 4:14]
He was not:
1 Appointed by a "Governing Body" centrally set up in one location, evidently in Jerusalem. We know that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD and the Christians were thus scattered from there. As near as we can determine, the first letter to Timothy was written about 63-65 AD and the second about 65-67 AD [NASB Study Bible Notes] So the "GB" if there was one, would have been rather busy at this time trying to preserve itself rather than keep tabs on a youngster from Ephesus.
2 Appointed by a traveling overseer representing a "GB" on the recommendation of the local body.
Did they have Deacons? Yes. And evidently Deaconesses to. [Rom 16:1] Phoebe is referred to as a "minister" [NASB, NW "T"] "Deaconess" [CB Williams NT] The word is the feminine form for the male "ministerial servant" at 1 Tim 3:8, which is why the NASB Study Bible says: "When church related as here, the term probably refers to a specific office, ie a woman deacon or deaconess." [page 1658]
Did they preach? Yes. But:
1 There is no evidence whatsoever that it was incumbent on all in the local congregation to evangelize. Eph 4:1 specifically says that Christ gave some to be evangelists.
2 When giving the qualifications for elders and deacons in the local churches Paul pointedly ignored the preaching work, emphasizing instead the empathy the prospective elder had for the fellowship of believers. Elders were not for the purpose of making converts, but building up the local fellowship.
3 There is not a single instance where people became believers as a result of a door-to-door ministry. Every time we see Paul or Peter or even Phillip preach, it was always in the open, in the public. The early Christians only came to people's homes when invited to do so. [Acts 10:24, 16:34] They never entered a home uninvited. Using texts such as Acts 5:42 and 20:20 is straining the plain meaning of the text. The idiom used for "From house to house" actually is better translated as "privately".
Hope this helps.