Posts by non_trias

49

Dateline and Perspective

by non_trias_theos in

two people can behold the same situation and conclude totally different things from their observations.

the pharisees saw jesus performing miracles and thought that he was empowered by beelzebub.

others watched the same thaumaturgic wonders and praised jesus as the son of god.

$$$:: Your argument does not apply to non. Non does not use this line of reasoning. God could be triune even though the word does not appear in the bible. The concept might appear. But it does not and so God is not--trias.

Actually, it does. Since to a catholic, the concept of a holy trinity does indeed appear, and is therefore supported in scripture, a catholic could use the very words that 'non' has muttered, in a slightly modified form of course, to essentially say what 'non' has said. Which is, absolutely nothing of consequence.$$$

A catholic can say whatever she wants to say. It dont mean it is so. Non believes that the concept of trinity does not appear in the bible. He does not use the line of reasoning with catholics that you accused him of. You were just wrong about that.

Trinity concept not appear in bible. It is just like that.

$$$It's only a gamble if you could be wrong. Is that waivering faith I hear?$$$

Gambling involves money. Dutch wanted to make a wager on end of world. There is no wavering of faith up in this place. Non does not get involved in taking other people's money. It is wrong.

49

Dateline and Perspective

by non_trias_theos in

two people can behold the same situation and conclude totally different things from their observations.

the pharisees saw jesus performing miracles and thought that he was empowered by beelzebub.

others watched the same thaumaturgic wonders and praised jesus as the son of god.

non_trias_theos

Non will no longer respond to those that call him Dunscot. He will only reply to his name, non.

$$$Imagine that I am a catholic, speaking to you now, and realize how little you have said in so many words:

"Hypocrytes make one fatal flaw. They become fundamentalist in their thinking. They think that because the word "trinity" does not occur in the bible, then God does not have a holy trinity. As one bible scholar once said, the word "love" does not appear in Hosea. But that book highlights God's love more than any other book in the bible. The word trinity does not have to appear in the bible. The concept may and does appear."$$$

Your argument does not apply to non. Non does not use this line of reasoning. God could be triune even though the word does not appear in the bible. The concept might appear. But it does not and so God is not--trias.

49

Dateline and Perspective

by non_trias_theos in

two people can behold the same situation and conclude totally different things from their observations.

the pharisees saw jesus performing miracles and thought that he was empowered by beelzebub.

others watched the same thaumaturgic wonders and praised jesus as the son of god.

non_trias_theos

$$$The good news that Paul preached was centered around the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and the forgiveness of sins. This message is utterly absent from most of the preaching of Jehovah's Witnesses.$$$

No it is not.

$$$If you really believe that JW's are preaching the same good news as did Jesus and Paul, perhaps you can point out some scriptures where either Jesus or Paul preached any of the following:

1. God's Kingdom would be established in the heavens in 1914.$$$

They did not preach about the established kingdom in 1914 because Jesus implied that this message would be preached in the last days as a continuation of the apostolic message. Matthew 24:14. Light had not yet gone forth yet.

$$$2. We must seek out and associate with God's organization in order to be saved.$$$

The first century organization of God was the Christian congregation. Paul did teach that people in his day needed to become Christians to be saved.

$$$3. God will destroy anyone who is not a member of his true organization and absolutely, unquestioningly obedient to it, no matter how corrupt that organization may be.$$$

That is a misrepresentation of what jw teach. You are resorting to nothing-but-ness again.

$$$4. "Wicked persons" are defined as anyone who is not a member of God's true organization.$$$

jw do not believe that.

$$$5. We need to calculate the end of the "Gentile Times" according to a flawed method using non-historical dates in order to understand Bible prophecy.$$$

You may have a point here. But non dares to say that you are not perfect either. What if you were put under a microscope? What cracks and defects might show in your little hide?

$$$I could go on, but these beliefs are central to the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, and they are utterly unscriptural. These ideas will be drilled into the head of any prospective convert in great detail, while the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and the forgiveness of sins - the heart of the Christian Good News as preached by Paul - will be mentioned in passing, at best.$$$

Read the publications for yourself. They will show you that what you just said is a buncha skybalon.

$$$

When Paul encouraged his nonChristian contemporaries to repent, did he tell them that the wicked he was condemning was they?

Was he telling them to repent of their good works? Obviously, by telling them to repent, he was bringing their wickedness to their attention! Of course, unlike JW's, he did not attempt to pigeonhole them as "wicked ones" because they did not belong to his organization (funny how he never actually mentioned that organization, huh?).$$$

If Paul was trying to associate new "converts" with the first century congregation then he did think it was necessary to be part of an organization. The early congregation was a united and worldwide brotherhood.

People who were not christians were said to be lost and without God.

$$$Rather, he recognized that they were sinners whom God loved and for whom Christ died, and encouraged them to become reconciled to God through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Again, a far cry from the work of JW's today.$$$

Not so. jw do the same thing.

$$$

If jw are God's organization, you will not be able to topple them with some puny Dateline show. But even from a sociological and psychological viewpoint, it is very doubtful that dateline will have the effect you want it to. Look at the history of the Catholic church. It has committed atrocious acts for hundreds of years and with what result? It has more zealots today than it ever did. One day the Catholics might fall in this world. But it will not be because of some show like Dateline.

So, it sounds as if you are saying here that, even though the JW's may be a filthy, corrupt false religion like the Catholic Church, a single Dateline show will not have the ability to destroy the organization. Unfortunately, you may be right about that. But Dateline will certainly do some damage and open some eyes. I'd hate to be a JW trying to go from door to door this morning.$$$

jws are not a filthy and corrupt organization. That is not what non said, twister. If one has God's spirit, she can bear whatever adversities come her way. Dateline will not affects jws in the long run. It will not topple the wt.

$$$As far as JW's being God's organization: There is no scriptural evidence that God works through an organization. I suggest you download this article and read it over: http://www.brci.org/Publications/Org96.pdf$$$

Non does not read apostate materials. Thanks.

$$$The word "organization" does not appear in the Bible, and neither does the concept of a monolithic, controlling organization such as the JW's are today.$$$

Apostates make one fatal flaw. They become fundamentalist in their thinking. They think that because the word "organization" does not occur in the bible, then God does not have an organization. As one bible scholar once said, the word "love" does not appear in Hosea. But that book highlights God's love more than any other book in the bible. The word organization does not have to appear in the bible. The concept may and does appear.

49

Dateline and Perspective

by non_trias_theos in

two people can behold the same situation and conclude totally different things from their observations.

the pharisees saw jesus performing miracles and thought that he was empowered by beelzebub.

others watched the same thaumaturgic wonders and praised jesus as the son of god.

non_trias_theos

$$$Non_compis_mentis asked, "How does one define insanity?"

Got a mirror?$$$

Very funny.

An image in a mirror is not a definition, dude. Do you need a definition for "define" and "definition"? Got a Websters?

49

Dateline and Perspective

by non_trias_theos in

two people can behold the same situation and conclude totally different things from their observations.

the pharisees saw jesus performing miracles and thought that he was empowered by beelzebub.

others watched the same thaumaturgic wonders and praised jesus as the son of god.

non_trias_theos

$$$duns,$$$

You talking to non? You made a typing mistake if you are.

$$$Pedophile Paradise does not mean that we--or Dateline--claim that all, a majority, or even a large minority (though this could be debated) are pedophiles.$$$

Coulda fooled non. Maybe you need to unpack your hyperbolic language.

$$$Most of us don't claim that the society and the local elders WANT to protect molesters... they simply HAVE to because they MUST put the public reputation of the "happiest people on earth" above individuals.$$$

That is a false statement. The elders have simply tried to help all concerned--both the sinner and the victims. They may have made mistakes in their loving efforts to be helpful to all concerned.

$$$Do 100% of non-molesting JWs abhore such monstrous behavior? Of course! But that doesn't stop them from unwittingly and/or unwillingly supporting a structure that inhibits exposing, punishing, and preventing such behavior.$$$

The assertion that the WTS has a structure in place that protects pedos is yet to be proved. Do not beg the question until all the relevant evidence has been sifted and--if need be--tried in court.

$$$Dateline didn't attempt to say that all JWs are pedophiles. They even said at the outset that there may not be a greater percentage among JWs than society at large. But what they effectively showed was that it is a paradise to these predators because the archaic rules in place make it very very hard to punish them--or even protect other children from being victimized--because of the air of secrecy.$$$

Dateline does not have all the facts. Some of what they said may be factual. But the other side has yet to be completely heard. Sit and wait.

2

the women are a large army

by Axelspeed in

jw
friends

i initially had reservations about how this would impact the r&f, thinking that most of the effects would be felt at the door.

the morning after i have a little different perspective.

based on my observations from last night's meeting, this may be only the tip of the iceberg.

non_trias_theos

Non thought Psalm 68:11 said that the those singing praise to God are an "army of large women." Did non missaprehend something?

49

Dateline and Perspective

by non_trias_theos in

two people can behold the same situation and conclude totally different things from their observations.

the pharisees saw jesus performing miracles and thought that he was empowered by beelzebub.

others watched the same thaumaturgic wonders and praised jesus as the son of god.

non_trias_theos

$$$Non_compis_mentis said, "Two people can behold the same situation and conclude totally different things from their observations."
Especially if one of them is insane.$$$

Problem is

How does one define insanity? How do one know who is insane and who is not? Normally insanus is a legal term. Does that then mean that one can only view or identify someone as insane in a legal context?

You tell non.

$$$Say Non, I'll take that bet on the destruction of the world coming soon. How much?$$$

True christians do not gamble.

$$$Boy, this wil be the easiest money I ever made! It is still "right around the corner" isn't it?$$$

In God's eyes, it is (Revelation 1:1).

2 Peter 3:1-4--proof of the last days

49

Dateline and Perspective

by non_trias_theos in

two people can behold the same situation and conclude totally different things from their observations.

the pharisees saw jesus performing miracles and thought that he was empowered by beelzebub.

others watched the same thaumaturgic wonders and praised jesus as the son of god.

non_trias_theos

$$$Non...why don't you answer some post?$$$

Because non is one person and the apostates on the board here outnumber him 4000 to 1.

$$$Don't you have an answer for all?$$$

Nope. Non not all knowing.

$$$Why don't you use that time to preach or do more upbuilding things than being on a page of apostates? $$$$$$

Non ask himself that all the time. He rather preach to sheep than hard headed goats.

$$$would you let your children play at his house knowing that he has admitted a "craving" for little girls, and has admitted molesting girls of all ages? the wt society admitted these are the policies, right there on dateline.....there was no twisting or "out of context" statements when it came to the societys stance on former molesters. they are clearly let back into the congregation (assuming theyve "repented", ick), and just not supposedly put in a position of authority.$$$

A Christian must forgive repentant sinners. That is the message of Christ. Non does not like homosexuality. But what if people like Joelbear are reinstated to congregation and they still have a tendecy to like men. Would non want to go visit joelbear? Should he go alone, even though bear has repented? See the point.

And brother Paul say that there are two kind of vessels in congregation. Some for good purpose and some for bad purpose. Brother Paul say avoid the second group. That is what non would do.

$$$Morrisamb thinketh a show in which a young woman talks about being raped is only puny in the eyes of 'non' beholder.$$$

Non not denigrating rape. Only saying that show is puny in relation to its effects.

$$$Morrisamb also hath no desire to topple any religion, including Jehovah's Witnesses. He waneth sympathy for the victim, justice for the abuser, and ministers/elders (whatever) to stop making Inspector Cluesou (-pink panther) moves with life and death matters.$$$

Non agrees with many Morris objectives.

49

Dateline and Perspective

by non_trias_theos in

two people can behold the same situation and conclude totally different things from their observations.

the pharisees saw jesus performing miracles and thought that he was empowered by beelzebub.

others watched the same thaumaturgic wonders and praised jesus as the son of god.

non_trias_theos

$$$It is extremely unusual for someone to refer to themselves in the third person. Usually it indicates either arrogance to the extreme, or a multiple personality disorder.

So, why do you do this? or maybe I should say - why does non do this?$$$

Non does this in pseudo-imitation of Bill Reilly. See Reilly's show and you will know what non is talking about. Another reason non uses third person when writing is for purposes of self-effacement and to annihilate the human ego that normally motivates most mortals who are enslaved to the flesh.

$$$Non is Dunscott.$$$

Non is non.

$$$While I agree with you, your thoughts don't change the fact that the WTS has a unique policy on dealing with this subject that makes them a "pedophile paradise". Would you willingly take your kids to a babysitter known to molest children? If you knew of a pedophile in your cong, would you leave your child with him/her?$$$

Non would not say that past policies of letting the elders handle matters turns jw into pedo paradise. Who in there right mind would take children to a known molester?

$$$Lets say there are six girls in the cong that accuse one man of molestation. There are not two witnesses to the crime, so nothing is done about it, in fact, the girls are warned to not say anymore about the matter and are told not to go to the police under threat of disfellowshipping. Would you entrust the care of your child to this man?$$$

The two witness rule is often misunderstood. Someone has already cleared up that fallacy on this very board. If elders have inadverently covered up wrong in congregation, God will adjust such a man and he will pay for his mistakes through Caesar. If elders have wittingly covered up wrongdoing like this, they will pay to both God and the state.

$$$What is your problem with hyperbole?$$$

No problem with hyperbole.

$$$Society in general is intolerant of child abuse. If "the society", aka the borg, has been more tolerant than society-in-general, and has revictimised the victims, for a long period of time, then the organization is due to be called a pedophile's paradise.$$$

The society has not been "more tolerant" of pedos than society at large. That is not true. You are failing to see why the elders in the past did not report molestation. It was not because they were trying to hide anything. Sometimes religion and the state come into genuine conflict. Religion tries to help people spiritually. True religion tries to obey God rather than man. Sometimes true religion may make mistakes when endeavoring to do what it thinks is the right thing because of inherited sin. But changes come in time in true religion. Decent people do not have tough time understanding this matter.

$$$Non uses the third person to distance him/herself from the argument he/she is putting forth. They can hardly tolerate the argument themselves and find it so repugnant that they employ the third person as a means of removing themselves emotionally from the subject matter.$$$

Non hopes you are not a psychologist or something. If so, you need new job. Your analysis is way off the mark.

49

Dateline and Perspective

by non_trias_theos in

two people can behold the same situation and conclude totally different things from their observations.

the pharisees saw jesus performing miracles and thought that he was empowered by beelzebub.

others watched the same thaumaturgic wonders and praised jesus as the son of god.

non_trias_theos

Dear patio

$$$Fortunately your line of reasoning would not hold up in any court of law. With your rationale, nothing could ever be decided definitely, it seems to me.$$$

Courts rely on the principle of epistemic fallibilism for mostly reasons that can be deemed pragmatic. But we are not talking about courts right now, are we? Non is dealing with sociological fictive realities. The ficitive reality in this case is how society acts when it apprehends certain data. History shows that things like the Dateline show do not make major adjustments in the attitudes of others. Maybe sometimes. But hardly ever when it comes to religion.

$$$It sounds as though a judicial committee goes to the other extreme of the spectrum, that there is no view but theirs. No witnesses allowed, just 3 that act as judge, jury, and executioner.$$$

Non sees little relevance to a jc at this point. Non is talking about the court of public opinion.

non_trias_theos

Posts by non_trias_theos