Very sensitive topic. I am a born in, and yes I believed in living forever in Paradise Earth, and it was the most difficult doctrine to leave behind. Yet, when I was growing up, there were too many questions and problems with it. Why should somebody get a resurrection because he died 2 years before Armaggeddon, and the one living longer would not get one? Why do 6 billion people have to die a violent dead? What about all the people that were never reached with the bible message? How can my grandfather be happy when he wakes up and finds grandma married with someone else? How will dead babies get resurrected? What is paradise if my 1st job would be to bury all these dead people and see all the destruction? There are too many practical problems really. And one day, a friend gave me a public talk from Cirius Aulicino or what's-his-name, and that turned me off so badly. I am very happy not to believe in that crap anymore. If there exists something like paradise, it is going to be in heaven, it even seems more logic to me, with less practical problems.
Hoffnung
JoinedPosts by Hoffnung
-
40
how important was the hope of the paradise to you? and what do you hope in now?
by Curtains inmany become and remain witnesses because of the hope of living in a paradise earth.
for those who have left how did you cope with the loss of this hope?
or do you still have this hope?.
-
-
-
22
elders would like a talk with me
by varian inhi everyone.. i recently had a phone call from an elder of my former cong.
they would like to chat with me, and obviously want to encourage me to come back.. to make a long story short: the last 4 or five years i was a jw in their kh, i was more or less completly ignored.
had in that time no phone calls, visits or any interest how i felt etc.
-
-
Hoffnung
Their love is as cold as ice. They only contact you because it is in the societies procedures to do so, and they have to answer the CO for having contacted all inactive ones at least once a year, preferably around the memorial period, which is 2 months from now. Personal interest is motivated by something else.
-
118
"Look it wasn't a global flood.."
by Qcmbr ini've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.
this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.
everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.
-
-
Hoffnung
And so the evidence is .... ?
-
118
"Look it wasn't a global flood.."
by Qcmbr ini've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.
this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.
everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.
-
-
Hoffnung
Actually I am more interested in reading scientific facts that completely rule out the flood, then find it confirmed. It all comes down to what we are willing to believe that is not proven. We all do that to some extent anyway. There would not change much in my opinion whether the flood was local or universal. It could as well be a local dramatic event that was described as divine because people of the time could not explain it.
It does not take away that the issue at stake is here, that God is kalled a liar, using the flood myth as touch stone. If you want to expose him as such, you have to bring real evidence to court. Otherwise the case is dismissed.
-
118
"Look it wasn't a global flood.."
by Qcmbr ini've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.
this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.
everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.
-
-
Hoffnung
There definitely was a flood of some proportions in that area, we all agree that this is supported by scientific facts. Can you say that as well about norwegian mythology?
-
16
2 Timothy 3
by cantleave inremember this well hacked scripture?
a jw favourite.
heres how i think it applies to them.. .
-
-
Hoffnung
I love the way you expose these Pharisees with their own writings.
Having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power
I am convinced that the high majority of born-in JW does not really believe in God. If you would take the organization away, their entire belief system also disappears. A CO once made a talk to explain the importancy of preaching from door to door. The conclusion was: if you take field service away, everything else that a JW does is absolutely a waste of time and energy. As preaching the way JW do it is not a requirement for salvation, why do it? If you think about it, what part of being a JW could be classified as worshipping of God? 0-5% at most. Then Catholics do even better.
Added to this that 2Tim was a personal letter from Paul to Timothy about a time period of their own lives. The wording is very similar to a few verses in Romans 1, Paul stating clearly it was going on at his present time, 2000 years ago. There is no reason whatsoever to believe in 2nd fulfillment.
-
118
"Look it wasn't a global flood.."
by Qcmbr ini've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.
this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.
everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.
-
-
Hoffnung
Wobble, sure that this does not prove a global flood, but for arguments sake, if they want to bring up the cold hard scientific facts, then they can write them out as well. Easy enough to make a claim and not provide the back up. Not that I can prove anything either though. I can just advance a theory and have others cut it down. At least I have to give it a try.
-
118
"Look it wasn't a global flood.."
by Qcmbr ini've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.
this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.
everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.
-
-
Hoffnung
Let us talk about these cold hard scientific facts then.
Can you explain what the extent of the flood was that caused this big change on Black Sea bottom (estimated some 6000 years ago)? How big was the volume of water and where did this water come from?
-
118
"Look it wasn't a global flood.."
by Qcmbr ini've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.
this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.
everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.
-
-
Hoffnung
There is still "some" evidence left, however small it is. The Black Sea bottom is full of it, actually. I really don't think God did anything to remove evidence, he just might have chosen a method that does not leave many traces. The fact that you cannot prove that an event happened, does not make it impossible. It is a grey area. Destruction by water also destructs evidence. How many people are still missing in Brazil? Why has the factory disappeared in El Salvador? Where is the evidence for that? it's gone. period. Nobody removed evidence from that either.
And about the "Why this method?", your reason is as good as mine. I really don't know. The only contributing element I can think of, is that God was in a "hurry" for one reason or another. He could have used a complete-extinction-by-volcano-ash-and-gas method, but he wanted some humans and animals to survive. Just my 2 cents.
-
118
"Look it wasn't a global flood.."
by Qcmbr ini've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.
this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.
everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.
-
-
Hoffnung
There are no eye-witnesses of the flood. All others cannot prove or disprove too much, as their is not really conclusive evidence against or for either case, just indications at best. Why all these discussions? Limiting your imagination to what humans can achieve today or a non-eyewitness report of the event 1000 years later, cannot be sufficient to provide us an all details covering explanation. Just remember, it is not the purpose of the bible. And whatever others have said about the use of the word 'earth' and 'world' in hebrew in Greek is also true.
If you would have unlimited resources at your disposal, and would have concluded to remove every living being on the planet by water, why should you limit yourself to using only rain? Why not using some extra gravity to make water raise and drop (let the moon come near, or another satelite or comet)? Or use some extreme wind force to push up levels? Or using some magnetic distortion with the same effect? Or a combination of all of it? The options are unlimited, really. Any of these means would:
- leave almost no traces, after more then 4000 years
- achieve the goal of killing all humans
- having the mountains covered in one area while in other areas the ocean is nearly empty is not a problem
- Solve the problem of sufficient water volume, the volume in the oceans is enough as supply
- still leave the possibilty of letting the flooding in the Iraq-Turkey area last longer then anywhere else, making it possible the arch ended up on the Ararat.
If you can believe God created the universe, creating a flood of moving waters all over the globe is actually nothing really major to do. Just imagine yourself with enormous (divine) power with a set challenge to make the flood happen. Would you limit yourself to just using rain? I don't think so... I think the only debatable point is the moment of the event, but that is another topic.
Did I prove the global flood? No. I only made it a possibility. If you want to believe in God and the bible, then try to think about his possibilities, even magic is in reach. If you want to discredit the bible and God, you will find the means to do so. Either way, your motivation is your drive and cause, and it will define your arguments. Who is correct? We will only find out later on.