Make sure that when they drop by, that the religious books you're reading are mixed in with several gun magazines. Tell them you just don't know what you'd do if you got called before a group of elders -- that your wife is afraid you'd do something stupid...rash.
Cold Steel
JoinedPosts by Cold Steel
-
25
Can you be disfellowshiped for reading other religious materials?
by paradisebeauty ini am having a conversation with a jw and they say you can not be disfellowshiped for this.
is this true?
i thought you can be disfellowshiped for this.
-
-
-
7
Who did new testament writers think Jesus was ?
by Steel ini have been reading this book called " the two powers in heaven " .. the readers digest version is basically there was a first century belief of kind of a dual god system in the old testament.
god is invisible and yet he appears at the " word of the lord " or " the angel of the lord ".
basically any time god was visible and dealing with humans in a touchable , see able manner , it was though to be christ.
-
-
Cold Steel
None of the New Testament writers had ever met the supposed Jesus, yet all save one of them gave their lives testifying of him. Very few able scholars doubt that Jesus existed. Religions like Christianity don't just pop up and spread over mythical figures. Not only did Jesus die for the faith, and the apostles (except John), but look at all the Christians that Rome tortured and killed from the first century on. People don't give their lives without conviction, nor do the scholars record histories or the theologians record doctrines. Christianity held together very well, but lost its cohesion after the apostles died and revelation ceased.
Denying the existence of Jesus is wishful thinking on the parts of today's atheists. Not satisfied with denying God, they now seek to deny Christ, his existence and teachings, but it's an intellectual form of whistling past the graveyard.
The Jews had varying expectations of the Messiah, including a dual messianic expectation, one of Joseph and one of Judah. One author I like is Margaret Barker, who has written and lectured extensively on the messianic expectations of early Judaism, the identity of YHWH as a son of God (not the Father, as the JWs think).
Believing Jesus didn't exist is far more an act of faith than believing he did exist. One may not like him, and not like his teachings, but they're fighting an uphill battle in denying his existence.
-
7
JW view of apostates is of human origin
by venus ingod doesn’t take action against a person who has long history of faithfulness when he fails for the first time.
for example, satan is freely permitted to move in heaven and on earth even after many many sins he keeps on practicing.
israel as a nation was not rejected at the first instance of their disobedience.
-
-
Cold Steel
Smiddy » How does that compare with Adam & Eve? They were immediately sentenced to a life of misery outside of God's favour and so were their offspring to what we see today 6,000 years later of misery, disease, indignities, suffering and death.
Yes, unless that God's intention all along. The Eastern Orthodox and a few other religions believe the Fall was a necessary part of man's journey from mortality to the Divine. In other words, Adam and Eve were not capable, in their immortal states prior to the Fall, of inheriting the Divine Nature. Only by falling and being redeemed by someone with that nature could they be elevated to that potential. As Father Kallistos Ware put it in THE ORTHODOX WAY, “God became man, so that man could become God," and “God became as we are, so as to make us as He is."
When man was first placed in the Garden, they did not have this potential. Had God not engineered the Fall, man would have remained in a stagnant state worlds without end.
It had all the trappings of a setup. Two beings, devoid of guile in an enclosed area with the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and a malignant being out to destroy them. They were set up. And they could not be condemned because they knew not good or evil when they partook.
In short, they were supposed to fall. Not for their harm, but for their good. (See 1 John 3:2)
-
45
So, is God a rapist!?
by stuckinarut2 inok, i apologise in advance if this seems irreverent to those who believe in god.. but, the bible says that god (jehovah) impregnated mary.
without her consent.
so that would seem to be rape...right?.
-
-
Cold Steel
Anony Mous » I'm sure "being all educated" you have read the account. The account according to Luke goes as such....
Many stories in the Bible and elsewhere leave out details. God doesn't work through force, nor will he compel man in matters of salvation. And he honors man's free agency (thus the difference between Christianity and Islam, which compels man in all things).
Like the prophets, it's safe to assume that Mary was preordained to be the Mother of the Lord. (See Jeremiah 1:5) To think she would have to be forced into this assignment is pushing the bounds. Some scholars have even speculated that the reason so many women in Mary's day were named Mary was because of a possible messianic tradition that that would be the name of the Messiah's mother.
According to traditions that are extant, the Messiah would appear when a large Gentile military force would attack and destroy much of Jerusalem, the city being saved at the last moment. In Jesus' day, Rome was regarded as being a great contender for that role. In the latter times, this battle is known as Armageddon. Any Jewish mother would have been honored to have been the mother of the Deliverer.
-
7
JW view of apostates is of human origin
by venus ingod doesn’t take action against a person who has long history of faithfulness when he fails for the first time.
for example, satan is freely permitted to move in heaven and on earth even after many many sins he keeps on practicing.
israel as a nation was not rejected at the first instance of their disobedience.
-
-
Cold Steel
Venus » Saul did not extend his waiting (waited for seven days) for Samuel indefinitely, but went ahead and made the sacrifice himself. This good-intentioned, extremely unselfish act of Saul was judged as disobedient by Samuel and declared his judgment: “Jehovah will choose another person to be king over Israel.” (1 Samuel 13:14) What else is needed to turn a good person into bad?
With Saul, this was a part of his arrogance. He assumed because he was king of Israel that he also had the priestly authority to offer sacrifices. It was for his arrogance and his tendency to second guess the Lord. Just as he did a short time later in sparing Agag and the livestock of the Amalekites, which showed he didn't learn a thing from his earlier disobedience.
Just as when Aaron's sons thought to use "strange fire" in their offerings, it was a contempt for the word of God. Based on the language used in 1 Samuel 13, we know that Saul did not obey the clear commandments of the Lord. Nowhere had Saul been ordained to the office of priest, nor was he of the necessary tribe to receive that office. This is one reason the Protestant reformers denied the priesthood authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Constantine may have been the emperor of Rome and the most powerful ruling authority of his time, but he lacked the authority of a single elder or bishop. It's also the reason the Pope excommunicated the bishops and King Henry VIII because he, being king, did not hold ecclesiastical authority. (Yes, it was an irony, but such is history.)
In short, there was no reason to think that Saul had any right, despite his intentions, to proceed with the sacrifice. If he grew tired of waiting for Samuel, why didn't he command his own Levitical priests to offer the sacrifices? Whatever made him think that he, lacking the priesthood, could offer them up? I suspect the priests followed Samuel's orders, not Saul's, but remember Uzzah, who reached out to steady the Ark. They had not secured the Ark as the Lord had required and when the oxen stumbled, Uzzah, lacking authority, attempted to steady it.
Saul knew these stories as well as we do and he knew it was a grievous sin to take authority that had not been given him. This is why Samuel became furious on both this occasion and the one with Agag. In our day we're trained to look at motivation when deciding what's right and wrong. But in Samuel's day, they took things like this far more seriously.
Having said that, the Governing Body have no authority, either. They are part of a manmade church with manmade policies that belie the merciful nature of God. Had Saul acted in good faith and not known the seriousness of what he'd done, the Lord would have been unjustified in his actions. The practice of shunning and disciplining church members is a policy that they are unauthorized to make.
-
45
So, is God a rapist!?
by stuckinarut2 inok, i apologise in advance if this seems irreverent to those who believe in god.. but, the bible says that god (jehovah) impregnated mary.
without her consent.
so that would seem to be rape...right?.
-
-
Cold Steel
Actually, Jesus wasn't born on December 25. That was taken from the Roman Feast of Saturn. Also, the Bible never specifically prophesies that the Messiah would be born of a virgin; however, the New Testament strongly suggests she was a virgin and that she consented to being the mother.
-
12
Facing My Mortality And Becoming A Donor
by pale.emperor inthis thread is quite morbid so i apologize in advance.. a few days ago i was having a conversation with my girlfriend in which she mentioned in passing that she's signed up to donate her organs after her death.
i was quite surprised because she mentioned it like it was no big deal.
i asked her which organs.
-
-
Cold Steel
Think of all the people who die and are buried, and organs that could have gone to benefit the lives of others end up rotting in the ground. My wife and I are both donors, and it's on our driver's licenses. It's important that you carry a card or other indicator so your organs can be expeditiously secured and stored. Anything else can be cremated, put in a jar and disposed of.
A woman friend of mine, an evangelical, told me, "Isn't being cremated show a lack of faith in the resurrection?"
"No," I replied, "actually it shows even greater faith in the resurrection. If God can put me back together after all that, then I'll be putting Him to the test."
It's regrettable that religious dogma often results in the waste of such organs. Does the "Truth" allow for non-blood donations to be made at the time of death? Having worked at the National Institutes of Health, I've gained a sense of my own mortality. I've also seen the benefits of bone marrow transplants in people whose lives were saved by the process. I've often wondered what the JW position is on such transplants. Donors have told me that the process is completely manageable as long as the donor takes it easy after the procedure. The one man I met who had a bad time afterwards felt so good he did some yard work. Two days later he was hospitalized, but he was so happy to have saved a life he told me he would do it again in a heartbeat. I've been on the list for years and haven't been compatible with anyone, but I know the value of being a donor. Parents of a child who needs a transplant, spouses and other family members -- the benefits of this procedure are enormous and highly gratifying. To pass a sentence of death on people because of someone's gross (mis)-interpretation of an Old Testament passage is outrageous.
Whether you give your body to science or become a bone marrow donor and/or donate blood on a regular basis, your act can save lives. Men often produce too much iron and this can cause heart and other problems. By giving blood on a regular basis, you can reduce the iron in your body by reducing the amount of blood. It benefits others and it benefits you. How can it possibly be bad?
-
28
If You Question The Governing Body, You're Like Korah
by pale.emperor inanyone who questions the governing bodys authority is labelled as an apostate and almost always they bring up the story of korah and his revolt against moses.. watchtower august 1st, 2002, the article loyally submit to godly authority paragraphs 8-15.. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002563.
in not so subtle hint, the gb likens themselves to moses, and those who disagree with the gb are korah.. paragraph 15 is actually quite damaging to the gb's argument though:.
it was so unnecessary for all those people to lose their lives.
-
-
Cold Steel
The thing about Korah is that after the ground opened up and swallowed him and the other rebels, the people blamed Moses and Aaron!
Moses was chosen by the Lord and had many witnesses of his power, according to the story. Also, seventy of the elders of Israel were permitted to see God and dine in his presence. Even to this day, the peaks of Sinai (Jebal Al Lawz) are blackened by fire.
The Governing Body has not seen God, nor have they seen an angel or angels, nor have they been commanded to do anything. They have appointed themselves as leaders in a manmade religion.
-
89
Do you believe in god?
by freakyAL ini used to be a staunch believer in god.
maybe its technology and science advancing so much thats got me doubting idk.
do you believe in god?
-
-
Cold Steel
Cofty » If you are defining "god" as the creator of earth then he murdered a quarter of a million men, women and children in the 2004 Asian tsunami. He is a moral monster.
How do you define murder? And why would God be a "moral monster" for not stopping a tsunami? All people die, regardless of whether they're saints or sinners, good or evil. Christianity has never promised that man could escape death, pain and heartbreak. It does, however, argue that there is purpose in all things, even if you can't see it at the moment. You blame God because He could have prevented it and didn't. Or, that he may have triggered it Himself.
Of course one might ask what what responsibility God has to prevent disasters. None that I know of. In fact, He warned us of what was coming.
Jesus: And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24)
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Ibid.)
You blame God for not stopping the pain and suffering of mankind without knowing why we must endure it. Peter writes, "Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator." (1 Peter 4:19)
Even prophets are often put to the sword for their beliefs, having no promise of their lives once their ministry is finished. All men must die and God has never promised anyone their rewards in this life. If there is a God, one must know what His purposes are; also, why we're here and what the future holds. Again, if there is a God, and He's taking an interest in us, what should we expect of Him? You argue that if God brings death to man, or even allows it to come, then He's a "moral monster" for not donning a cape and coming to our rescue! But that's not what He's promised us.
What has He promised? First, He's promised all men, both the just and the unjust, a deliverance from death. That is through the atonement. As an atheist, you are completely free to say you don't believe in God and that such belief is delusional. That's your religion. But to accuse God of murder and say He is guilty of taking life when He, in fact, promises us deliverance from death, isn't accurate. First, if there is a God, He is the arbiter of what is murder and what is not murder. And two, He is the One who created the moral laws that condemn it; thus, you would have to be in a position of judgment to render that judgment. The basis of your charges rest on 1) the premise that God exists; 2) that He wantonly violated His own law by either creating or allowing the tsunami to happen; and 3) that if guilty, judgment ought to be unbelief on the part of the aggrieved (that is, the human race).
If God does not exist, the people who perished ceased to exist when the waves took their lives. Thus, no one committed murder. If God does exist and He is the God of the Bible, then those people did not cease to exist, but are as alive as they were in life; only without their bodies (which will be restored later). Thus in either case, God is not guilty of anything, neither can He be judged, for all things are subject unto Him.
Finally, according to Christian theology, nothing that happens to us on Earth is of any lasting harm. People don't go through eternity emotionally scarred. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, we humans are better off after our sojourns here. But to get there from here is, of necessity, a painful process -- one you don't presently understand. Thus it is, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2)
If I'm right, then your knee also shall one day bend. On the other hand, if I'm wrong, neither one of us will ever know because we'll be dead.
-
33
The Second Coming of Christ
by maccauk inthe second coming of christ was in the 1st century at the destruction of jerusalem the temple the law and the old covenants.
so the new eternal covenant came into force in which people of every tribe tongue and naation would enter into.
the new jerusalem not built by human hands nor with bricks and mortar its spiritual cannot be seen but people will stream to it the sin issue is done there is no more judgment for those in christ .
-
-
Cold Steel
David_Jay » The Romans had no hatred of the Temple and tried to save it. It caught fire in the siege by mistake.
True. One account (Josephus?) reports that fighters on both sides ceased hostilities and worked together in an ineffectual attempt to put out the flames. Titus had given strict orders to not to burn the temple. No one knows who threw the firebrand into the temple that was responsible for its destruction.