Posts by Jonathan Drake

21

Mormon 'support' for gays, pressure on the WTS?

by Simon in

the mormon / lds church has noticably changed it's stance toward homosexuality and instead of condemning it seems to be supporting protection for people's rights (of course they want to throw some protection for themselves in there as well).. how will this affect the wts?

the lds is the more-successful counterpart to the wts, similar age and history and same non-mainstream appeal.. i have no doubt that the lds church is only changing because they know which way the wind is blowing and society has completely changes it's attitudes towards gay people.

maybe they just want to stay ahead pf the curve before federal legislation enforces people's rights.. now, can we see the wts changing their views" will they be one of the last holdouts?

Jonathan Drake

This is what I was basing my comment on in the other thread about, "due to this wicked world our way of worship is soon to change." The problem is they really did nothing but take and didn't give anything. The United Nations submitted their findings to the Catholic Church last year or the year before after they investigated them and told them they have until 2017 to reform their policies to allow contraceptives and teach gay rights in their schools.

The Government doesn't care about whether or not they stop speaking out, they don't want them teaching their followers it's wrong. They want them to teach tolerance and acceptance amongst their community and the Mormons aren't going to do it. So all they've done is said, "We'll still not address the real issue and continue to not comply as long as you stop trying to make us."

They even said it themselves. They will support anti-discrimination laws for gay rights as long as people are allowed to disagree without consequence. So obviously, they still want to teach it's wrong, and its this that the government doesn't want.

My information came from this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/27/us/mormon-church-lgbt-laws/

72

Last nights meeting...

by DATA-DOG in

i know dubs are delusional.

i know dubs don't reason well.

i know dubs are a bit off, like many groups.

Jonathan Drake

Disgusting.

Catholicism and Contraception

by Jonathan Drake in

does anyone have any reputable sources debunking their stance from a medical perspective?.

i've engaged catholics about this before and after showing its unscriptural, and a hypocrisy per their own rules about teaching, it next leads to how they've been taught, even if it's not based on scripture, its not healthy and harms the body to do anything but nfp..

Jonathan Drake

Does anyone have any reputable sources debunking their stance from a medical perspective?

I've engaged Catholics about this before and after showing its unscriptural, and a hypocrisy per their own rules about teaching, it next leads to how they've been taught, even if it's not based on scripture, its not healthy and harms the body to do anything but NFP.

4

Jehovah's Witnesses Choose Ignorance - Blog

by daringhart13 in

i wanted to test the forum to see how my links come up.. i blog on my jw experience.

here is my opinion on why so many know nothing about this 'religion'.... http://darrinhart.hubpages.com/hub/jehovahs-witnesses-and-the-chosen-path-of-ignorance .

i know there are some newbies....if interested, i also wrote a short ebook that may help some:.

Jonathan Drake

I really enjoyed your blog article.

its true, witnesses don't realize what they are expected to believe. A big one I've come across is that, so far, nobody I've spoken to realizes the Org teaches if you're not one of them you will die. I point it out and they just say, "no we don't believe that, they've never said that."

They have. And they still say it all the time, just not as bluntly.

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Jonathan Drake

Viv I don't know if you realize you're doing it, but you are a destructive, negative presence here. I have no problem with people with different opinions and beliefs. But I do have a problem with any who attempt to force that opinion or belief on me.

In both of the threads in which you have responded to me, you positioned so called facts. Some of which I'd concede can be argued, such as el and Yahweh. But you were proven wrong on other subjects and it didn't even register to you, you ignored it and continued to harrass me and instigate an argument rather than have a civil discussion.

I spent about 5 minutes reviewing your treatment of others besides myself, and found you're behavior is a pattern. You're a destructive force here that always seems to end up in an argument because of how you address others. I have flagged all the posts in which you were being instigative and harassing for the sake of it, rather than for any real discussion.

I do apologize however, for the few snide remarks I did make toward you. No matter how you addressed me, I should have remained completely civil. Having said that, I sincerely hope your behavior is reviewed by an admin. I also invite any who read this to review both this thread entirely and this before passing judgment:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/66690001/exactly-what-historic-view-divine-what-being-god-meant-long-ago

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Jonathan Drake

"Also I direct this to you again Viv, failure to comply will be viewed as discrediting your comments going forward:"

You are not as knowledgeable as you think you are, and appear to be a bit of a would be bully.

Not so, if you review all of Viv's comments you will find this individual to be a disrespectful, argumentative, insulting person. I only responded in kind, I did not invite it.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the 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

According to this explanation:

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm

I fail to see how this is a category error. The God yahweh was never given "properties" the God could not have, and certainly none it could not have because said properties already belonged to El. Nor are the two Gods separate categories - they all fall under the same category of an immaterial being. why should it be unacceptable that two immaterial beings separated only by a name are not the same God?

But I find myself giving no respect to belief in the undetectable, the unprovable, the unknowable. I find it hubris to pretend to know thing that can't possibly be know.
- Viv

Technically, all of this is theory. Looking up, I'm finding references stating this is really all theory since it's written like ancient Hebrew in that the full word isn't there. They assume "Yw" is "YHWH", it isn't a known fact. I enjoy the theory, and id like to read more about it, but if it cannot be asserted with certainty that Yw denotes YHWH, why argue that point? The bible claims El is Yahweh, the names such as israEL show this is very likely. But it nowhere shows a separate Canaanite God called Yahweh, and these tablets don't provide enough for more than a theory Yw in the tablet might be Yahweh, but it isn't a fact. It being only a possibility and not a fact doesn't appear to be disputed in what I can find online (which i plan to suppliment with a book). Hence, why position it as a fact?

10

PESHER: an Historic scheme of INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE. . . Watchtower style!

by TerryWalstrom in

george bernard shaw said: no man ever believes that the bible means what it says.

he is always convinced that it says what he means.. shaw must have had pesher in mind!

but, what is pesher?.

Jonathan Drake

I have to wonder how 'knowingly' the person of C.T.Russell, J.F.Rutherford, N.H. Knorr, Frederck Franz, et al resorted to Pesher to force scripture into their modern chronologic schemes?
That is to say, did the feel historically justifed? Or, was it merely self-aggrandizment?
Maybe this process is not so binary as that . . .
How likely this pitfall is a trap of the ego must be considered, too.
Isn't Pesher a kind of shout-out to the Universe: "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" ???

Russel I'm not sure about, I've wondered myself. But I am of the opinion that each leader after Russell definitely knew what they were doing.

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Jonathan Drake

Lastly, come the wary, weary, wastrels (myself included) who solve the problem by ABANDONING every premise and starting anew.

This is what I have done myself. Which is why the factual statements made in these threads by me are assured. I.e, viv apparently didn't grasp that saying Yeshua ben Yosef is his actual name. That is a example of a name. "Lenaomi ben" is not a name, at all. Historical fact, proven. Known. Unchangable. The surety in responses to my unchangable facts is, indeed, very repugnant to me.

Also I hope you read the rest of that glowing review and not just the part about Q. I can't tell now if you were serious in your opinion of the book.

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Jonathan Drake

We can all learn from each other. It is painful, certainly, because we (I know I do) find it hard to be wrong. But, intellectual honesty requires we suffer for our 'truth.'

Win.

I agree with your comment about outside influence being evident through the nicene council. And your previous post addressing john 1:1, the book by Hurtado I just finished talks about it as well. It's kind of crazy how convincing their argument is when you're indoctrinated, but as soon as you put it under a microscope it falls apart fast. As with many of their other doctrines.