i am well aware that many members of this board adhere to the view that the wt and/or the bible is contradictory.
the question is: if paul grundy is so enlightened as to 'the truth about the truth', why is he so contradictory?.
jwfacts to me (in a personal message): "much of the information at jwfacts.com is from the research of people far more gifted then me,and comes from jwn.
Recovery. . .
Here in the real world, you don't have to be perfect to be believed. There is no "Truth", nor any infallible interpretation of it.
We just evaluate them all and go with the one that checks out best.
In the WT world there is no infallible "Truth" either. Just some silly old men who can't admit their mistakes.
Meanwhile a big thank you for promoting the wonderful and informative jwfacts.com !.
i have a question for the author of the website jwfacts.
as i was reading the sparlock article, i couldn't help but notice something seriously wrong:.
"the bible abounds in vivid fantasy, such as its many celestial descriptions, or the portrayal of warring kingdoms with imaginary beasts.. the sparlock message is confusing, as much for an adult as for a child, as the bible shows that god's followers practice magic, even if they are usually referred to as miracles.
thanks, Recovery, for your post 287.
Now there are those that use the argument that David is said to have studied omens, magic, and as well as Daniel when he was educated in the practices of the Babylonians. But notice the distinction that has to be made when one is arguing from this viewpoint. Daniel and David are thought to have studied, not practiced such things. Jehovah does not say 'YOU must not study magic or omens'. He says 'YOU must not practice it.'
Now I understand this argument and how it relates to Sparlock! If Caleb had only studied Sparlock, his Mum would have been fine with it!
do you shun former members of your religion?.
those who were baptized as jehovah's witnesses but no longer preach to others, perhaps even drifting away from association with fellow believers, are not shunned.
in fact, we reach out to them and try to rekindle their spiritual interest.. .
What I find most offensive is when the half-truths are directed at children. Look at the "Guard against Ambition" "Bible study" activity.
A story of treachery and treason is relabelled "Ambition". . . which another time can be linked to "higher education"
i have a question for the author of the website jwfacts.
as i was reading the sparlock article, i couldn't help but notice something seriously wrong:.
"the bible abounds in vivid fantasy, such as its many celestial descriptions, or the portrayal of warring kingdoms with imaginary beasts.. the sparlock message is confusing, as much for an adult as for a child, as the bible shows that god's followers practice magic, even if they are usually referred to as miracles.
I was thinking about responding to certain points but then I again I doubt anyone is still paying attention 8 days later
Is that the theocratic way of saying "you win?"
the oneness of.
what is the purpose of gods.
how do we observe the oneness.
As JWGoneBad says. . .
From para 9:
Do I avoid others so as not to remind
them of whatever it is they have against
me, perhaps making sure there is sufficient
distance between us?
But wait. . .isn't this the religion where everyone has "True Love" for one another? Now they need distance?
i noticed in the "magic" thread many former jw's no longer adhere to the bible as the unerring and accurate word of god.
if you feel this way, can you please list any specific reasons/arguments as to why not.
this thread isn't for debating purposes, but simply for listing.
Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2
God needs a proof reader.
is there such a thing as progressive understanding of god's will?
a simple yes or no will suffice, but if you'd like to state why, please by all means do so..
Is there such a thing as progressive understanding of God's will?
For any individual, yes, of course.
For anyone or group claiming to speak under the direction of the Holy Spirit or any other form of "infallibility", no, it doesn't apply. Either they were not speaking as directed, or they were not directed at all.
interesting stuff in the november wt.
note this dishonest quote:.
during his ministry, jesus.
Elephant writes:
...i'm interested in seeing you understanding now...would you mind providing your interpretation of wether Jesus is or not an angel?
thanks!
If you want to know something about a poster and her/his beliefs, Elephant, click on their name and look at some of the earliest topics they posted on. This will help you know where I'm coming from. It's also the reason Besty suggested you tell us a bit about yourself.
Any more info that you have a good reason to ask, pls PM me.
Retro
interesting stuff in the november wt.
note this dishonest quote:.
during his ministry, jesus.
Hi Elephant,
i appreciate that you continue to interact with me...
You're welcome.
...your question as to why i'm here if i'm not an apostate is only logical if you concede that you are one...but i dont think you or anyone here would do that...
Don't be too sure. apostacy can reasonably be regarded as a badge of honour. was Martin Luther an apostate? Anyway I could be seen as an apostate, in the sense that my spiritual beliefs changed over time and don't exactly conform to those of the church I was raised in.
So, please seiously consider Besty's advice and tell us a bit about yourself and why you are here.
...and it was christ alone that introduced this topic...he argues that it is I that holds the burden of proof, even though HE introduced the topic...i have simply asked him to prove OTHERWISE (that Jesus is NOT an angel)...and he has not been able to do this yet... (see my counterpoints.)
Sure, I've read your posts. With respect, you need to read up about logical fallacies. The OP didn't argue that Jesus was or wasn't an angel, but that the Bible does not say that Jesus was an angel. See, that is defensible because we can agree on the content of the Bible. Now it's not enough to select a few verses and indicate that they may suggest something; for this article to be an honest belief statement of a Bible-based religion, it must show where the Bible supports what is in the article.
hope this helps. Retro
interesting stuff in the november wt.
note this dishonest quote:.
during his ministry, jesus.
Hi Elephant
...again...i won't call myself an apostate..hence the second choice...
Ok, fine, you don't call yourself an apostate. But if you are a jw what are you doing here?
as for the second point...well...as you can see, i too used the same "evidence" and "reason" that christ alone presented forth...
Now that's not correct. Christ Alone said that nowhere in the Bible is Jesus presented as an angel, and nowhere in the Bible does Jesus call God Jehovah. These are facts. You have been unable to refute them. And yet you claim to base your faith on evidence and reason.
