Honestly I think the religion will be gone in ten years or less.
Jonathan Drake
JoinedPosts by Jonathan Drake
-
16
What will JW.org / Watchtower be like in 15 years?
by jw07 inover the past few days i've been reading and watching bill and melinda gates speak about their plans for a better world by 2030. they bet that due to technology and the compassion of people the world should improve more in the next 15 years than it has in all of history.
specifically lower child mortality rate, eradication of polio and guinea worm among other diseases, improvement of standards of living, greater access to education etc.. i'm a realist, so i'm not looking for miracles, but i believe most of these things are possible given the level of success they have reaped in other endeavors, and naturally emerging tech being used to make some of these projections possible.. you can see that the world is actually improving in many areas if you seek out the good news stories and statistics and look beyond the watchtower friendly fear porn about terrorism, and potential dangers from culturally diverse nations around the globe.
for instance 2014 had the lowest fatal airline accident rate in history despite the hyping of the ill fated malaysian airlines crashes.
-
-
-
69
Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared
by EndofMysteries insince so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.
just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.
for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
@island man
this doesnt really have a baring on the thread but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to type your posts. Having been raised a witness I'm very ignorant on the subject of evolution and I found your posts very informative, I appreciate them very much.
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Thank you finkelstein. I really disn't want to have to type another long post.
As as far as the insinuation that I'm lazy and have not read the bible, I'll let that stand on its own merit. I spend a great deal of time studying the bible, and I was aware of all the information in the previous post above. So I get the sense I may have made you feel insulted somehow and if so I apologize. I was in a hurry this morning trying to get out and go somewhere, so it's possible I didn't express myself properly.
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Sorry in. Y first post I meant to address you not cofty.. Oi I'm out of it today.
well all I can tell you is I've read this in several works of scholars, so unless you have a doctorate or masters in classical language and such things I'm going to trust the more educated sources telling me this phrase, the one specifically used by Christ, was unique to him and unaccounted for.
like I said, the referenced where this is discussed they are addressing the original language ohrase not the transliteration, which may match the translation of a similar phrase elsewhere, however this one in particular is unique to Christ.
-
11
The Bible's huge implicit contradiction on the subject of love for God vs love for your fellow man.
by Island Man in"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
@ctrwtf
wow Ty, for some reason I assumed that was the gospel... :/ lol
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Jonathan Drake
@cofty
scholars can't account for the origination of the phrase Son of Man. It's unique to Christ himself. They call it an ideolect, and he only used it when referencing himself. So when Christ asked, who are they saying the son of man is? It was the same as him saying, who are they saying I am?
son of man is not a phrase found anywhere else at that time, and when he said it it was not a reference to the Old Testament references to someone like A son of man, which is a different phrase.
-
11
The Bible's huge implicit contradiction on the subject of love for God vs love for your fellow man.
by Island Man in"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Ok, I'll concede that point you made. However it still doesn't change the error regarding the second quote.
As to your example of Ruth, Ruth fulfilled the comment of Your first quote above to love her brother (sister). In doing so she was an example of what God wanted for his people, proven by christs example and words testifying to this. god would have been pleased with this.
There really isn't an issue in any of these references. Ruth was praised as an example of love. she followed the later example, love your brothers you can see first.
-
53
What exactly was going on after Jesus was put to death and no longer around?
by Terry inthe jesus believers were meeting in people's homes.
members of that community would take turns using private homes to gather.
thus, they went house to house.. these footstep tracers of jesus (they called themselves akolouthontes "followers" or some called themselves mathetai or "learners.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake I currently doubt that Paul wrote the second letter to the church of Thessalonica, because it contradicts the first one, and as the priest Raymond Brown has noticed, the author tried to copy just exactly the same structure of the first letter.
Could you you point out the contradiction so I can check it out?
-
11
The Bible's huge implicit contradiction on the subject of love for God vs love for your fellow man.
by Island Man in"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
In your first quote Christ is talking about loving God almighty, not himself. It therefore has no bearing on the second quote.
In the second quote is not a contradiction because of the point ive already made. However, if you read the context his reason for saying this is clear. He had just given an illustration, and the point he was making was that nothing should come between you and your devotion to following christs teachings. He wasn't giving permission to hate, he was saying if anyone gets in the way of your obeying his commandments and example or says they'll leave you if you do or whatever - you should choose to follow him instead. Whatever cost may come from choosing that life was your torture stake, and he said you should be prepared to bare it.
-
32
The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees
by adjusted knowledge init is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
The wandering around just muching grains argument may be fair enough (or not, but whatever), but the first thing that went through my mind was, so THOSE grains didn't count against you for the sabbath like all calories don't count (if you are driving, on your birthday, if you are drunk, or while you are cooking). It strikes me initially with it being a distinction without much of a difference. Gathering grains to eat is what you do during the harvest, too. I imagine some of them are "munched", too.
An actual harvest was drastically different. They actually harvested the field, it was a lot of real work - and all at a time when they had no farming equipment we'd see today. So it's a huge difference to call picking off a few grain heads working and saying it's the same as actually harvesting.
the blood doctrine is absolutely not scriptural btw. None of the scriotures they use to support it actually do, nor do any of the logical arguments. I highly suggest reading the article about it on jwfacts.com.