Posts by Jonathan Drake

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

@cofty

i did not say it was an Islamic teaching that they are supposed to take the bible as scripture as well, I said the Quran says so. The Quran does say this, many many times it says it's a "confirmation of other scriptures not a replacement". Do Muslims believe this? No. Does the Quran say it? Yes. So it's just am example of a previous point I made, which is that like the majority of Christians the Muslims do not actually listen to their own book. My primary argument is that the Quran says what it says, and that it does not support terrorism or hate but love and forgiveness. The group ISIS takes verses out of context to support their cause just like JWs do or Catholics. As terry pointed out earlier, the religion does not represent God. Religion and God are not hand in hand. The Quran and what it says is a separate issue from Muslims and what they believe. I've also shown elsewhere that the Quran calls Jesus the messiah and since it's meant to be taken with the bible it would support Jesus ascension regardless of what Muslims believe. It cannot be avoided that, regardless of what they believe, the Quran says what it says and is a witness against them by the majority.

@loveunihateexams

i agree that enough Muslims agree with ISIS to provide an army of at most 50,000. However, being that there are over a billion Muslims in the world - this is less than .5 percent.

I will concede that arguing the Nazi party would never have taken over and led to the haulocost if not for Hitler is a moot point since it happened and cannot be tested otherwise in any way. However, it took hitler to get the ball rolling and lead them down that path- so it's an argument I, personally, will hold to; without Hitler, it would not have happened. He was the reason it happened, not Germany, not being German, not even the events leading to the support from those who supported him- just him; without him it wouldn't happen. I believe this completely.

@Simon

the difference between the Crusades and isis is that it actually was sanctioned by the entire Christian empire including its emporer. The two scenarios don't have any real comparison because unlike ISIS which makes up less than 1% of all Islam, the Crusades were supported by the 99% and only opposed by less than 1. People were just crazy about joining the crusades and fighting for the church and God. This is absolutely not the case with ISIS.

18

Elders Starting To Poke Around... Advice?

by Garrett in

jw
friends

as many of you know, i've been out of the organization for about a month now.

the elders haven't shown an interest in my absence until now.

today, i have received phone calls from two elders as well as a friend.

Jonathan Drake

So far I just ignore them. There's been two people I've had to say something to and I usually day this:

"I have serious disagreements with some things that have taken place recently, as well as scriptural discrepancies I have found in my personal study. If you wish to discuss them I am willing, but I will not argue and I am not interested in being called an apostate- so unless you are interested in a real open minded discussion I will be keeping my feelings and findings to myself."

so far this has worked. I would be selective of the personality you say this to if you choose to use it.

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

@ cofty

i agree with both of your posts, and what you said is kind of the point I was getting at. There were elements at work which Hitler manipulated to rise to power and in his rise he made the proper connections and moves to draw out the crazies. But these crazy do not define Germans either now or then.

every culture or group has a small percentage of crazies, but these people are like a dormant volcano. They need a charismatic leader to spark them and drive them. Without this leader nothing would ever happen. So the issue at hand is that rather than Islam being the problem, it's craziness, and rather than the people, it's the leader they turn to.

As an example, look at JWs. We are all likely be able to think of nut job JWs. The ones who keep to themselves and never go to the theater or parties because it's got some satanic influence. These people are the crazy hardliners who think even their fellow religionists aren't really following the religion truthfully. Every religion has them. But the religion isn't the issue, these peoples mental attitude is the problem. All it would take is a charismatic person like Hitler or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to set them off and direct their crazy in a certain direction. But without these people to set it off, they are largely docile weirdos.

ome amendment I'll make: they do not take the Quran as literally true. Unless they do it in the same sense JWs do the bible. Which is to say they reach a wrong conclusion based on twisting the verses. The Quran says multiple times it is meant to be taken ALONG WITH the bible (both old and New Testament). Thus everything in the Quran is meant to be taken in the context and restrictions of biblical verse. There is no support in the Quran for what Terrorists do except by malicious slander of the book.

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.