i noticed this paragraph in blondie's comments:.
q 5. what has especially distressed jehovah?.
5. satan's revolt is still going strong.
They basically accept the calculations of Irish Bishop James Ussher who in 1640 counted up all the begats in Genesis and decided that Aam was created at 9am on the twenty-third of October, 4004 BC
I don't think they have ever been silly enough to attempt to explain it.
a few weeks back, in the midst of the haiti tragedy, much discussion took place in cyberland about the tolerance [or indeed the insistence on] suffering by a loving god.
the furor over haiti has settled a bit [as unfortunately most tragedy is wont to do far too quickly in the human mind], but this persistent matter continues to chew at my subconscience.
today i came across this:.
I understand it thoroughly - I just don't fall for it any more.
i'm not that good at quoting the bible.
i see no value in learning verses by heart, sorry.
however, i just learned that in the new world translation (the organization's bible), john 10:30, jesus is said to say "i and the father are one".
Loosely translated as "Cofty doesn't believe in god anymore so I can ignore his objections to the way I play fast and loose with facts"
An informed atheists view of how you use scripture selectively is just as valid as that of a fellow believer. If you had a reasonable question on science you would rightly expect a naturalist to address your objection honestly. If we dismissed it because you did not accept the scientific method you would be right to call "foul".
i'm not that good at quoting the bible.
i see no value in learning verses by heart, sorry.
however, i just learned that in the new world translation (the organization's bible), john 10:30, jesus is said to say "i and the father are one".
Stephen what a bizarre question. I am an atheist you know that already. I consider all belief in the supernatural from gods to homeopathy to be a delusion.
Do you really want me to judge who is the more deluded?
My point is that the wt view that the bible does not teach the trinity is at least as defensible as the christian dogma that it does
I'm sorry but you did not make two unambiguous statements about Jesus being god, you are just very good at ignoring anything said in response
a few weeks back, in the midst of the haiti tragedy, much discussion took place in cyberland about the tolerance [or indeed the insistence on] suffering by a loving god.
the furor over haiti has settled a bit [as unfortunately most tragedy is wont to do far too quickly in the human mind], but this persistent matter continues to chew at my subconscience.
today i came across this:.
Thanks for the theology lesson DD. I know soteriology better than most. I believed it with a passion for many years post-borg. It is in a different league from anything the WT has ever taught about salvation but when you ask difficult questions and hold it up to reality it is ultimately vacuous.
It has no answer to the subject of this thread, your jaw dropping comment is evidence enough of that
Because we all deserve much more suffering than we receive.
i'm not that good at quoting the bible.
i see no value in learning verses by heart, sorry.
however, i just learned that in the new world translation (the organization's bible), john 10:30, jesus is said to say "i and the father are one".
Stephen do you really want to get into a debate about singular anarthrous predicate nouns?
No neither do I.
It is not a delusion for goodness sake. It is just a fact that there is no unambiguous statement about either the divinity of Jesus or the trinity anywhere in the bible. If it mattered somebody would have said so. Its all opinions and dogma.
I suspect you know that already but you think if you use words like "delsion" (I think you meant delusion) others will be cowered into letting you off with tenuous arguments.
Nobody can even define the trinity succinctly without engaging in double-talk.
Jws teach unadulterated nonsense; christian dogma is more sophisticated but no less fanciful. Stop pretending you are on solid ground.
other religions have hallal and kosher foods since the koran and old testament tell them to "abstain from eating blood.
" these foods are 100% certain to have been bled.
witnesses who think this law is so important don't ever check if their meat is bled, they just asume it is so.
The bible principle was that the blood of an animal slaughtered for food was to be poured out on the ground thus symbolically returning the life to god. It was not to be used for any other purpose other than sacrifice.
Even if an animal is bled, the fact remains that the blood from a slaughterhouse is used for a myriad of commercial uses and therefore should not be eaten according to the bible.
Another example of double-standards
a few weeks back, in the midst of the haiti tragedy, much discussion took place in cyberland about the tolerance [or indeed the insistence on] suffering by a loving god.
the furor over haiti has settled a bit [as unfortunately most tragedy is wont to do far too quickly in the human mind], but this persistent matter continues to chew at my subconscience.
today i came across this:.
Jeff -
Looking forward to a straight answer hahaha
i'm not that good at quoting the bible.
i see no value in learning verses by heart, sorry.
however, i just learned that in the new world translation (the organization's bible), john 10:30, jesus is said to say "i and the father are one".
Stephen you are grasping at straws. Every proof text you can mine to "prove" Jesus is god/God can properly be understood in more than 1 way while still paying attention to the context.
John 1:1 is not a strong candidate. There is no question that JWs do not view Jesus with anything like the same reverence as the early church did but the deification of Jesus was a gradual process, support for it in scripture is tentative at best.
In order to justify such a self-contradictory concept as the trinity the church had to wrestle with such weird concepts as...
appropriation
perichoresis
hypostasis
ousia
procession versus dual procession
filoque etc etc
Followers of "Jesus meek and mild" have tortured and murdered each other in large numbers over such trivia
a few weeks back, in the midst of the haiti tragedy, much discussion took place in cyberland about the tolerance [or indeed the insistence on] suffering by a loving god.
the furor over haiti has settled a bit [as unfortunately most tragedy is wont to do far too quickly in the human mind], but this persistent matter continues to chew at my subconscience.
today i came across this:.
So is it more logical to believe in a capricious god or in no god?
