Posts by I_love

3

Which Watchtower do the Jehovah's Witnesses serve: north, south, east, or west?

by I_love_Jeff in

http://sacredwicca.jigsy.com/watchtowers .

(my guess is the south watchtower which is associated with michael, one of the four archangels.).

don't miss the "history of the watchers" section that mentions "those who are awake!

I_love_Jeff

http://sacredwicca.jigsy.com/watchtowers

(My guess is the south Watchtower which is associated with Michael, one of the four archangels.)

Don't miss the "History of the Watchers" section that mentions "Those who are AWAKE!"

7

Is this the way a good Christian should present himself/herself?

by I_love_Jeff in

jehovah's witness states: "the word 'disgusting' is always applied to false religious practices - and it's appropriate to point out god's feelings about them.".

i found this up on ya!

answers.

Is the Trinitarian view point correct based on this passage-Titus 2:13?

by I_love_Jeff in

titus 2:13- "while we wait for the blessed hope-the appearing of the glory of our great god and savior, jesus christ, " .

the part in question lies at the end of the passage "...of our great god and savior, jesus christ,".

*granville sharp's rule-when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as cephas, or paul, or timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person.. this, as far as i know, has been an ongoing argument among trinitarians and non trinitarians for a very long time.

I_love_Jeff

Titus 2:13- " while we wait for the blessed hope-the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, "

The part in question lies at the end of the passage "...of our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,"

*Granville Sharp's rule-when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person.

This, as far as I know, has been an ongoing argument among Trinitarians and non trinitarians for a very long time. I would love to hear your take on it. Any strong arguments for or against? Thank you.

Many non Trinitarians have stated that Sharp's rule is absolute rubbish BUT with no proof to actually disprove the rule. I find this passage quite interesting for obvious reasons-Is God three persons or one?

Greg Stafford points out the prepositions BUT did not explain in detail how this grammatical arraingment ("of") came about. Where did the preps. come from? Were they purposely added or is that arraingment found in ancient texts?. Any thoughts, please.

7

Is this the way a good Christian should present himself/herself?

by I_love_Jeff in

jehovah's witness states: "the word 'disgusting' is always applied to false religious practices - and it's appropriate to point out god's feelings about them.".

i found this up on ya!

answers.

I_love_Jeff

Yes indeed they are!

7

Is this the way a good Christian should present himself/herself?

by I_love_Jeff in

jehovah's witness states: "the word 'disgusting' is always applied to false religious practices - and it's appropriate to point out god's feelings about them.".

i found this up on ya!

answers.

I_love_Jeff

Jehovah's Witness states: "The word 'disgusting' is always applied to false religious practices - and it's appropriate to point out God's feelings about them."

I found this up on YA! Answers. What sayeth you?

9

Which logical fallacy is being used here by this Jehovah's Witness responder?

by I_love_Jeff in

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ajkx.ygxlhrevzucyabujrpty6ix;_ylv=3?qid=20121217130952aak8l6h.

the responder is bar-anerges (a popular jw responder on ya) and he is using a common fallacy or perhaps more than one in his response to the question.

will someone please assist me in narrowing down which one/s he may be using.

I_love_Jeff

Appeal to Spite sounds about right

9

Which logical fallacy is being used here by this Jehovah's Witness responder?

by I_love_Jeff in

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ajkx.ygxlhrevzucyabujrpty6ix;_ylv=3?qid=20121217130952aak8l6h.

the responder is bar-anerges (a popular jw responder on ya) and he is using a common fallacy or perhaps more than one in his response to the question.

will someone please assist me in narrowing down which one/s he may be using.

I_love_Jeff

Appeal to Ridicule, perhaps...tahnks Witness My Fury

9

Which logical fallacy is being used here by this Jehovah's Witness responder?

by I_love_Jeff in

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ajkx.ygxlhrevzucyabujrpty6ix;_ylv=3?qid=20121217130952aak8l6h.

the responder is bar-anerges (a popular jw responder on ya) and he is using a common fallacy or perhaps more than one in his response to the question.

will someone please assist me in narrowing down which one/s he may be using.

I_love_Jeff

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjkX.YGxLhReVZUcyAbujrPty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20121217130952AAK8L6h

The Responder is Bar-Anerges (a popular JW responder on YA) and he is using a common fallacy or perhaps more than one in his response to the question. Will someone please assist me in narrowing down which one/s he may be using. I think one would be false dilemma. What do you guys/gals think? Let me know if the link does not work, I will gladly copy and paste the response here. Thank you for your help in this matter.

10

Why do the Jehovah's Witnesses agree with certain beliefs and not others especially coming from someone they quote most often?

by I_love_Jeff in

of course i am talking about tertullian.

i presented this topic to jehovah's witnesses one time and they were not able to clearly explain why.

tertullian held certain beliefs contrary to the jws but there are some things the jws do agree with and often quote them in their articles.

I_love_Jeff

Problematic-

"At the heart of your question, am I understanding you are asking if it is ethical to accept the writings of someone to support your viewpoint on doctrine, even if that person at their core didn't believe int he doctrine you did?"

Exactly

10

Why do the Jehovah's Witnesses agree with certain beliefs and not others especially coming from someone they quote most often?

by I_love_Jeff in

of course i am talking about tertullian.

i presented this topic to jehovah's witnesses one time and they were not able to clearly explain why.

tertullian held certain beliefs contrary to the jws but there are some things the jws do agree with and often quote them in their articles.

I_love_Jeff

Of course I am talking about Tertullian. I presented this topic to Jehovah's Witnesses one time and they were not able to clearly explain why. Tertullian held certain beliefs contrary to the JWs BUT there are some things the JWs do agree with and often quote them in their articles. Does this kind of thinking pertain to the old light and new light theory? It's okay to accept certain beliefs from a Christian apologist but scrape the others that do not jive with their own man-made doctrine? eisegetical apporach, perhaps? If a Jehovah's Witnesses says to an Elder: "There are certains JW beliefs I do not agree with but other points I do accept". What do you think that sounds like? Is that not grounds for a potential disfellowshipping (of the ring-just had to include that for kicks)?.

Anyway, on a serious note-would that not be hypocritical to accept certain beliefs from someone they quote most often and scrape the rest? I am talking about religious beliefs (the heart of one's religion). For example, I enjoy reading biblical archeaology and astronomy. There was an article I read online yesterday about the star of bethlehem, it discussed the planetary positions right around the birth of the Christ child. He may have been born around late May according to these astronomers/astrologers (authors of the article). Some may agree and others may not. My point is that it is something I may just agree with because of the partial scientific approach on that particular subject matter. Within my sect (let's say I'm Catholic), would I not be deemed a hypocrite if I do not believe the traditional date given by religious leaders? Let me give a better example pertaining to the Jehovah's Witnesses: Let's say Brother Tom read several pages from Tertullian's Apology and noticed several quotes that do not agree with his own beliefs. So brother Tom discusses this with another Elder who enjoys reading Tertullian and agrees with most of his writings. What would the Elder say to Brother Tom about his disagreements? Old Light vs. New Light?

When Jehovah's Witnesses quote from a religious apologist, should they not agree with his entire beliefs instead of picking and choosing which is what they do best?

I_love_Jeff

Posts by I_love_Jeff