Posts by Jonathan Drake

18

Jw wedding talk giving questionable advice as usual

by hoser in

jw
friends

i recently went to a wedding and listened to the wedding talk at the kingdom hall the couple had both heard the talk before as they were both married in kingdom halls before.

this is his second time and her third.

the advice given.

Jonathan Drake

Her third his second and they were allowed to have big wedding at the KH?

This is exactly what I as thinking. This guy must be well connected with the leaders in the hall. Or her daddy is an elder.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

I don't go along with the gun control analogy - me neither. Simon's German analogy seems better. It's seems obvious to say that Nazism had something to do with Germans, even though not all Germans were Nazis.

Criticising Islam or calling for reformation is in no way attacking muslims as a whole, in the same way that criticising or ridiculing the Catholic church or WTS is not attacking catholics or JWs.
People talk about the fact that there's such a diverse range of Islamic interpretations as if that's something wonderful. I couldn't disagree more. Diversity isn't always 'enriching'. All I want is for Islam to acknowledge its place within Western society, something that is yet to happen.

I could see this, because it's also true that the Qurans words ARE IN FACT being used even though they are being MISUSED. So in a sense the German to Nazi comparison does sound good but in a sense it does not. People like to claim that millions of Muslims may not be ISIS but that they agree with their actions. This is absolutely not true. Just because many Germans in Germany didn't speak out against Naziism doesn't mean they supported them - it means they understood of they spoke out they'd be killed.

The center of the Muslim world is right there in the same region with ISIS. Therefore the majority will not speak out, because they will die if they do. However, all around the world in farther away lands they are fearlessly condemning these people. So even if we can say that the Germany illustration fits, we are really just agreeing that that the majority do not support the radicalism the few are displaying.

also, naziism had nothing to do with Germans. Hitlers ascension to power was a mischievous one where his true intentions were at first difficult to see. Once he had power things went wrong fast if I remember correctly. The issue wasn't all of Germany, just the one German. Just like the issue with radical Islam isn't all of Islam, just the one leading radicalist.

21

Giving comments at meetings that cause cognitive dissonance while keeping yourself below elder radar for apostasy

by Brokeback Watchtower in

well i'm sure we can come up with clever comments that make people feel uncomfortable by serving to decompartmentalize things that have been compartmentalized in the thinking of the average jw.

or comments that make the cognitive dissonance stand out plainly, these have to be said in innocent manner and with an apparent obliviousness to the contradiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/compartmentalization_%28psychology%29.

Jonathan Drake

first method is to give a comment as if you're a complete hardliner. An example of this is a comment I wanted to give during the book study a few weeks ago. The paragraph said something about his God cleverly had the Bible written in such a way that it exposed those with a"critical heart" my comment was "many people take issue with the fact that the good of the Bible on several occasions ordered the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child of other nations, not even giving them the chance to accept God. But it is clear that anyone raising such objections simply have a critical heart." Basically the point is to apply the point of the paragraph in such a way that it becomes obvious to anyone with half a brain that it's wrong.

The only problem with this is any who are familiar with the Old Testsment well enough will know it isn't the case. The land of Canaan is recorded in the scriptures to have had 300 years to repent and return to God. It wasn't untill after this period their land was seen as no longer theirs and given to Israel. So they had a very long time in which they could repent and return to God but they did not. Also, even when Isarel was at the gates, if the people had repented and urged to God they'd have been forgiven and spared. This is demonstrated by the likes of rahab and the men who feigned to come from a distant land and make a covenant of peace.

21

circumcision as a mark of gods people

by user100 in

so the last two watchtower studies talked about circumcision as a mark of god's people.

i thought it was weird why they would pick that as a mark.

why dont they chop of their earlobe er something.

Jonathan Drake

Actually if anyone is interested...

it is widely believed and asserted in many texts that Melchizadek was Noah's son Shem. He was the first king/priest in the name of the one God known as El Shaddai who later was Yahweh. It is taught that Shem/Melchizadek was born without a foreskin and that this is where the practice originated because Israel was originally meant to be the chosen king/priests out of the earth making up the Little flock. They emulated Shem, the originator of "true" worship.

26

Jesus died for US...technically

by enigma1863 in

for god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son and then took him back.

that's not love, its a big legal loophole.

people have technically died in the past, and by the standards of diagnosing death in bible times you could definitely beat 48 hrs and return.

Jonathan Drake

Jonathan, please do. I don't see how bible scriptures could say anything about the history of determining death. And this is the theology most Christians teach.

Alright. I currently do not have the time to sit down and gather scriptures to support what I'm putting forward, but I will provide them as soon as I am able.

In the Old Testament, it was always understood that blood being spilled was offering atonement for sins. On the day of atonement each year, Israel took sacrifices to the priest for atonement and that animals blood was spilled and the life offered to God in asking for forgiveness of sins. Somewhere in Hebrews (I believe) Paul calls the law, "Faulty." He calls it so because it could NEVER fully atone for the original sin, and this is obvious because it needed to be repeated yearly. So these two points need to be remembers going forward:

1. Only blood (life) offered to God atoned for sin in any significant way (I.e., Cains sacrifice was worth less than Abels).

2. No blood (life) offered to God could ever atone completely for mankinds sin. No animal is equal to imperfect man, let alone sinlessness (which was lost).

Having established the above, we move into the New Testament. It would be more proper to view John 3:16 not as saying God, "gave" but rather than he, "gave permission" or, "allowed." The scriptures state that Christ, "humbled himself and took a slaves form" from his pre-human, heavenly life to his human PERFECT state. This indicates very clearly it was his free choice to do this, and that is the most significant point to remember about the story. God did not FORCE Jesus to do this, Jesus humbled himself of his own free will and his Father (Almighty God) gave permission or allowed it.

I believe 2 Peter 2:1...? Calls Christ our, "owner." This is because he CHOSE to repurchase us, which follows an ancient custom of the repurchaser. You see an example of this in the book of Ruth. So what actually happened is as follows:

Christ willingly, of his own free will, became a man and used his sinless blood (life) to completely atone in one payment for our sinful state in a transaction (of sorts) in which he literally buys mankind back from sin. Thus he atoned perfectly for all sin past, present, and future - nullifying the mosaic law because further atonement would never be necessary.

As a REWARD for his willful and loving deed, he was not left in the grave but raised to be king over mankind whom he now owned and rightfully rules. His perfect blood being spilled was a one time transaction which, once complete, accomplished fully the repurchasing of man. Thus it was necessary for him to die in order for us to have hope, and it was unnecessary for him to stay dead. If he had stayed on the earth eternally, and his blood never been offered, we would have no hope at all and would be eternally subject to sin, pain, and death.

Further, Kaik's comment is wrong in every way - no offense meant. But the Jews always had a mediator. The role was taken by the high priest at the temple, who mediated between them and God by over seeing the sacrifice.

second Christ is not 1/3rd of God. Even the trinity, if you believe, firmly asserts them as separate beings with the almighty at the head as superior to all. They make up a family, not all one person. Further the trinity is demonstrably wrong, as Hebrews 1 shows Christ with authority over all the angels, having been risen above them to the point of being worshipped - nothing is above him except God Almighty himself. Yet, Christ knew in John 14 he would have no authority over the Holy Spirit but would have to petition the Father to send it. Hence the Holy Spirit cannot be an angel because if it were Christ would be its authority and he is not.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

As an analogy . . .
Right-wing Conservatives see gun violence as isolated incidents by mentally unstable persons, RATHER THAN an indictment of all gun-owners. In fact, they get very pissed off when Liberals make that connection.
This assigning of total culpability to an entire group is just another manifestation of the Muslim/terrorist issue, according to Aslan.

I agree 100% with this. It's spot on.

Ive watched half of the debate so far, and Aslan is on point. I don't hear him saying anything I disagree with so far. Ive made a similar argument to the one he makes about history elsewhere on the forum but he does it with far superior articulation and a much more educated stand. I'll be reading all of his books pretty much immediately.

11

Pic of pinky ring

by Jonathan Drake in

jw
friends

i realize i made a thread about this already but it was buried and i'm hoping to get some attention.

if they should be merged i apologize.. .

can anyone make out the inscribed shape?

Jonathan Drake

Yeah. You need a better picture. It could just be a fugly ring. Lots of guys with no taste wear some fugly rings.
I would determine:
1) What is it, really?
2) If it's something significant, do all the GB or GB helpers wear an identical ring?
If you can identify it and prove that they all wear one, then MAYBE it's something worth taking note of. If not, it's just some fat, old, too much cologne wearing, dude with the standard fugly ring.

DD

Yea, I think I'll keep waiting for a better shot. I've gone through the video twice and can't get any better resolution o the ring. Like you said it could just be garbage. I'll keep watching for a better shot of the rings and if I see one that is clear as day I'll resurrect this topic and post it.

11

Pic of pinky ring

by Jonathan Drake in

jw
friends

i realize i made a thread about this already but it was buried and i'm hoping to get some attention.

if they should be merged i apologize.. .

can anyone make out the inscribed shape?

Jonathan Drake

@ blondie

unfortunately no, however if you use a mobile device and pinch zoom I may be able to describe for you where to look.

Looking at the uppermost portion of the ring you see a darker dimple, which is matched by the left most portion. Im wondering if these two dark dimples are not the ends of the cross key symbol - the circular ends one would be holding (see image above), these then cross in the middle and on the othe side if you look closely you can make out what appears to be a square off of each cross line toward the middle, which I think might be the actual key portion of the cross key symbol which would go into the door.

as for the 41, this is because I can't tell if the slant I'm seeing on the upper right side of the ring in that photo is because of the ring or part of the engraved groove.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

The mistake that is likely being made by Harris, as well as many others in western culture, is failure to take into account the events around which the Quran was being taught. Also, please forgive me, I haven't watched the video you posted yet but I will when I get time later today.

During the time the Quran was being spoken by Muhammed (it wasn't written down for a very long time- originally an oral teaching) was a time of upheaval. Followers of Muhammed were being persecuted by Judaism as well as the surrounding people who were neither Christian nor Jew (the "Pagans"). Muhammed had formed peace treaties with some, and in particular the Meccans. The Meccans, however, broke this treatise time and again, attacking Muslims while on their pilgrimages and otherwise just in general. Regarding this specific issue, you find verses such as this:

"They ask you, Prophet, about crescent moons. Say, 'They show the times appointed for people, and for the pilgrimage.' Goodness does not consist of entering houses by the back door; the truly good person is one who is mindful of God. So enter your houses by the main doors and be mindful of God so that you may prosper. Fight in God's cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits. Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious that killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them - this is what such disbelievers deserve- but if they stop, then God is most forgiving and merciful." 2:189-192

There are many who take these verses out of context to say the Quran is proscribing violence. However, if one is willing to read it honestly, it is clearly not the case. What is being proscribed is self defense, and highly restrictive self defense so as not to overstep limits, I.e., be unnecessarily violent. The issue at hand was the persecuting Meccans were attacking Muslims while on pilgrammage. Pilgrammage was a holy time, and the Muslims weren't fighting back and getting killed or taken captive from fear of muddying their service to God. So these rules were given proscribing restrictive self defense, where they could only kill if necessary (others are trying to kill them), and they were to stop immediately if the assailants ceased their oppression AND BE FORGIVING as God is merciful.

The Quran does not proscribe these vengeful actions by terrorists because under no circumstance is a Muslim supposed to be on the offense. To do so is condemned in the Quran as a sin which, if left unrepented, will land one in hell whether Muslim or no.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

Harris points that most of the barbaric violence being orchestrated by Islamic extremists comes from the directives written in the Quran itself, essentially making barbarism a socially sanctioned behavior and duly supported.

The problem with this is that anyone lightly educated about and familiar with Quranic verse knows that it does not do this at all. The radical ideology formed by terrorist groups is not from the Quran anymore than the teachings of the Carholic Church are from the bible. The origin of such practice and belief is solely the leading individual, not the Quran. As has been pointed out by some who have been held captive by Isis and freed, ISIS soldiers and captors don't even possess a Quran.

I do have the book, and can provide countless verses against all violence except in defense - defense which is also regulated by stating emphatically that being unnecessarily violent, up to and including taking a life, will yield condemnation from God.