did it bug you as a witness that jesus only had to go from door to door for 3.5 years, and he was done; while he demanded that you do it for your whole life without preparing for the morrow?
i just remember a few years back reflecting on the daunting prospect of doing it my whole life if the end didn't come - "sooner rather than later".
what are your thoughts?.
I don't find my life as a Christian to be "cruel and a pointless waste of time and potential", and find very much the opposite to be true. I do preach quite a bit, but I don't waste my time going door-to-door as it is ineffective and not inline with how it was done by the 1st century Christians anyway.
So I guess we will not have any commonality on the subject and it's not worth discussing.
did it bug you as a witness that jesus only had to go from door to door for 3.5 years, and he was done; while he demanded that you do it for your whole life without preparing for the morrow?
i just remember a few years back reflecting on the daunting prospect of doing it my whole life if the end didn't come - "sooner rather than later".
what are your thoughts?.
TEC - Consider the context and content of the scripture - teaching and proclaiming the good news. The passage is not talking about gatherings. The evidence is plain - it's in writting in that passage nonetheless. Just because you say it isn't so, doesn't make it so. I think you might do well attending some JW meetings for some better bible education.
You seem a bit hostile here, but I will respond to this anyway to help you with your misunderstanding.
Although the wording "from house to house" does appear in multiple translations, the wording itself is a bit clunky (as often happens when translating, especially with ancient writings), and does not imply a literal knocking on a door, preaching, then moving to the next door in a repetitive fashion street by street. The term used here is more accurately translated as "in the homes" that aligns more with the reality of what occurred when preaching was done in public areas and then those doing the preaching would be invited into people's homes to continue the discussion.
Even Fred Franz admitted as much (at least privately and to himself) by some handwritten notes he made in his own bible. This very subject is covered by Ray Franz in one of his books.
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.
How do you know the past thinkers that came up with the "currently accepted meaning" are correct?
It (Romans) seems pretty self-explanatory to me, but I am definitely willing to listen if someone can show me the traditional understanding is incorrect. I assumed that you agreed about the meaning as well or you wouldn't have skipped it when we were discussing the other verses.
(BTW, if by "other cultural references" you mean things like rape then that's a discussion that's already been beaten to death again and again and has been shown that the word rape did not necessarily have the same meaning as it does now, so I don't see the point in wasting my time repeating what's already been shown so many times. Even a few hundred years ago rape did not necessarily mean sexual violence.)
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.
jworld, thank you for your response. What you wrote is what I have read on other sites regarding this issue, so I assumed it was where you were going, but I wanted to make sure before commenting.
While I have read that argument before and on the surface it does appear to have some merit (I have not researched it extensively to gauge exactly how much merit it does have), I am struck by this:
Aside from Romans
Which is where I was afraid the issue would end. I haven't yet seen an argument for why the comments in Romans may mean anything other than the typically accepted meaning.
For the record, I should state that I'm one of those rare Christians who just doesn't care about homosexuality. I'm not "liberal" in my Christianity by any other measure that one would typically use, but I just cannot ever find it in myself to care whether someone is gay or not (although I will never support or make excuses for the whackos who dress up in diapers in pride parades or act flamboyantly). I have wondered if I will be judged harshly by God for not having a stronger aversion to it when I see it. I honestly just don't know.
But if there is information that could lead me to believe the traditional view of homosexuality is incorrect, then I would really like to see it even if just to give myself peace of mind for not hating it. But all explanations seem to always fall flat in the face of Romans, which has so far lead me to the inescapable conclusion that I am wrong.
I hope you understand why I was asking.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Still waiting for answers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
