Posts by Searril

29

Watchtower views on Homosexuality

by ttm1988 in

afternoon all,.

a bit on my background.

i studied with the jw's a while ago in my teens, was acitve in meetings, and all the other things good witnesses do.

Searril

The fact that gay marriage doesn't appear in the bible doesn't mean it condems it.

If this response was to me (I'm not sure) then gay marriage is not the source of my question. My question is about the practice of homosexuality itself.

29

Watchtower views on Homosexuality

by ttm1988 in

afternoon all,.

a bit on my background.

i studied with the jw's a while ago in my teens, was acitve in meetings, and all the other things good witnesses do.

Do you not realize that, in the event you were permitted to be baptized by them, the first instance you were seen to have engaged in any type of homosexual behavior you would immediately be disfellowshipped? I don't see how a guaranteed disfellowshipping is better than simply not joining the religion at all.

Concerning this:

b) encourage gay members to stay, in the knowledge that God does not hate them, as long as they moved into monogamous loving relationships

I am a Christian (which is to say I do not support the Watchtower Society), but am not a "gay-basher" as some are. But there are a number of scriptures that would appear to outright condemn homosexuality with no mention of monogamy as a qualifier for acceptance. I'm curious where does your reasoning concerning the monogamy come from and have you explored this justification with any ministry members from other churches?

70

If the WT dumped 1914 tommorow ...?

by faithfulslavedriver in

this is my first post here.

i've been a lurker for awhile but had no particular desire to join until the other day.. anyways, do you think that if wt decided to face the fact that 607-1914 is an indefensible pile of crap that has been artificially kept steaming for way too long, would it really kick off a mass exodus or anything?

in the short term the fds/gb might lose some authority, but they are hemorrhaging people anyways keeping it around (607 started me on the road to this place).. if wt stopped talking about 1914 for awhile then later killed it, blaming it on "further research" or something, and acknowledged some uncertainty in 607/587, i really doubt that very many of the r&f would think much about it.

Searril

As you've been still unwilling to answer my simple questions I must assume that not a single person on the planet has accepted you as the Messiah. Would the real Messiah have trouble convincing even one single person out of 7 billion?

70

If the WT dumped 1914 tommorow ...?

by faithfulslavedriver in

this is my first post here.

i've been a lurker for awhile but had no particular desire to join until the other day.. anyways, do you think that if wt decided to face the fact that 607-1914 is an indefensible pile of crap that has been artificially kept steaming for way too long, would it really kick off a mass exodus or anything?

in the short term the fds/gb might lose some authority, but they are hemorrhaging people anyways keeping it around (607 started me on the road to this place).. if wt stopped talking about 1914 for awhile then later killed it, blaming it on "further research" or something, and acknowledged some uncertainty in 607/587, i really doubt that very many of the r&f would think much about it.

Searril

Still waiting for answers.

70

If the WT dumped 1914 tommorow ...?

by faithfulslavedriver in

this is my first post here.

i've been a lurker for awhile but had no particular desire to join until the other day.. anyways, do you think that if wt decided to face the fact that 607-1914 is an indefensible pile of crap that has been artificially kept steaming for way too long, would it really kick off a mass exodus or anything?

in the short term the fds/gb might lose some authority, but they are hemorrhaging people anyways keeping it around (607 started me on the road to this place).. if wt stopped talking about 1914 for awhile then later killed it, blaming it on "further research" or something, and acknowledged some uncertainty in 607/587, i really doubt that very many of the r&f would think much about it.

Searril

I became the messiah on December 25, 1992.

Although I'm not a regular here, I have seen you post this multiple times. I am curious. Do you have followers? What I mean by that is obviously you know that no one here believes you are the messiah. Do you have anyone currently in your life right now who accepts you as the messiah and publicly confesses as much?

I'm coming out now more since likely Armageddon will occur this year. I'm to be revealed soon so I'm providing some background and context for when I'm revealed.

If Armageddon did not come this year, how would that affect your beliefs about yourself? If Armageddon did not come for the next 5 or 10 years?

Would you find it reasonable, if you were me, to confess you as the messiah and take the risk of destroying my salvation if it turned out you really aren't the messiah since you haven't given any evidence of such. I think we can agree that Jesus had no trouble giving evidence that he was who he claimed to be.

41

Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.

by JonathanH in

i was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.

he's arguing for freedom of speech.

whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.

Searril

If, in your mind, simply declaring oneself to be something, whether or not the person displays the qualities that are indicative of that thing, is all that is required to be that thing, then I will never be able to reason with you.

I cannot prevent you from believing every non-Christian is a Christian if you desire to do so, but that won't make it true and won't make it reasonable to believe.

So continue calling hateful people Christians if you want, but it won't make them Christians and it won't make people who know better believe they are Christians.

41

Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.

by JonathanH in

i was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.

he's arguing for freedom of speech.

whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.

Searril

It is one thing to warn someone of a pending action that you -do not- support. It is quite another thing to warn someone of a pending action that you -do- support. When you support the threat contained in the message, the listener naturally feels threatened. If "threat" is not exactly the correct word for the second type of warning because the messenger isn't the one who will execute the action, do you have a better word that conveys the distinction?

I have not given any thought to what word, other than "warning", that would be appropriate under scenario #2 in your example. It seems to me that the word "warning" suffices perfectly.

If I pull out the state's law books and turn to the statute that details the definition of murder and the punishment of such action, and then I read it to you, am I threatening you or am I informing you of what the law says may happen to you if you engage in the aforementioned crime? It cannot be a threat as I am not a police officer and I have no power nor authority to force the court to give you any sentence that is not handed down by a judge who is completely separate from me.

We can make analogies back and forth until the cows come home, but in the end I have zero power over anyone, and zero influence with those who do have power, so I cannot issue threats toward any person, nor do I wish to. I have enough to worry about keeping my own self in order without being concerned about leveling threats against someone else's behavior.

God will never ask my advice on what should be permitted, and if He ever were to do so He would undoubtedly disagree with me on my judgments. But Jesus says He requires mercy, not sacrafice, and I take Him at His word that He will be understanding toward my frailty.

41

Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.

by JonathanH in

i was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.

he's arguing for freedom of speech.

whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.

Searril

I am a pacifist. My interpretation of pacifism tells me it is right for me to go around blowing people's head's off with my shotgun.

Do you believe I am a pacifist?

41

Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.

by JonathanH in

i was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.

he's arguing for freedom of speech.

whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.

Searril

Jonathan, no offense intended, but your post is the perfect example of what I didn't want the conversation to turn into. Too many threads on the internet devolve into a litany of "mini-points" where each person has to spend time dissecting each and every sentence of the other to point out the precise points he doesn't agree with. You'll probably say it's a cop-out, but I'm just not interested in that type of tiresome nitpicking each other's statements to death.

I think it's pretty apparent that your analogy is woefully lacking and does not hold up under a bit of scrutiny. It is a simple fact that I cannot threaten anyone when I have no power to affect, or cause a chain of events to put into effect, whatever happens to that person. That is simple logic and true.

Clearly you and I will never agree on what the message of the bible is and whether or not God has the right to do what he does, so is there really a point in my dissecting everything you say to rebut this or that?

41

Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.

by JonathanH in

i was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.

he's arguing for freedom of speech.

whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.

Searril

They say they are chrisitans.

If I claim to be a Martian does that mean I really am one? Or would I have to possess and display the qualities of someone from Mars in order for it to be true and believable?