RWC

Joined

• started 8 topics
• posted 197 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by RWC

• 
  46

  How could we all get along better together???

  by Celtic in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  without being slagged off for opinions expressed, without being ridiculed often, without constant smart ass one liners and put downs, how could we given the opportunity get along better together?

  not utopia, not this, not that, just a simple question in need of simple upbuilding replies that enable this place more to reflect the care for others it supposedly sets out to achieve.. any comments?.

  here we go (rolling his eyes) .... peace.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  Tatiana,

  To have your attitude after all you have been through is a true testament to your character. After hearing your story I admire you.
• 
  46

  How could we all get along better together???

  by Celtic in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  without being slagged off for opinions expressed, without being ridiculed often, without constant smart ass one liners and put downs, how could we given the opportunity get along better together?

  not utopia, not this, not that, just a simple question in need of simple upbuilding replies that enable this place more to reflect the care for others it supposedly sets out to achieve.. any comments?.

  here we go (rolling his eyes) .... peace.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  Tatiana,

  To have your attitude after all you have been through is a true testament to your character. After hearing your story I admire you.
• 
  40

  QUESTION: What religion are you in now? ...

  by terafera in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this got me to thinking.... now that most of us have left the wts, i notice some have taken other belief systems.

  some have come to a peace with their own ideas.. my question is are you involved with another religion?

  has it brought you more peace or happiness?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  It is interesting that so many of those who have left the JW have a distaste for any and all formal religions. Some to the point of not believing in God at all or settling on their own beliefs without the restriction of accepted doctrines. That says alot for the legalistic restrictions of JW and how it hides the true teachings of Christianity. I myself have never been a JW but was a Lutheran for a long time. I found peace and happiness in the Catholic Church of all places. It has its problems just like all religions, but at its core it is the closest I have found to what I believe was taught by Jesus. Abuses in the past have certainly occurred, but it is making an effort to return to its roots. I find it accepting and forgiving. Alot more so than the Fundamental Churches who seem to be so closed minded.

  In your effort to rid yourself of the legalistic trappings of the JW I would encourage you to not lose sight of the true teachings of Christianity which is based upon love and grace.
• 
  14

  What is God?

  by mindfield in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have yet to find a personal set of beliefs that will satisfy my mind, but one thing i am starting to get sure of is that there exists no "christian" god.

  the reasons for that belief aren't many, but proof that god exists isn't that plentiful either.

  i use the bible as proof god doesn't exist as it depicts it... others use it to prove he does, in fact, exist.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  Mindfield,

  I firmly believe in the God of the Bible. Although there are alot of resons for this,the main reason is the proof that Jesus Christ rose from the dead as he said he would. Christianity, based upon the life of Jesus Christ as explained in the Bible, shows that God existed in the man Jesus and that he rose from the dead. This plan is spelled out in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament. It confirms that God exists as described in the Bible and that he did what he foretold he would do.

  The idea that God is merciful at one moment and vengeful the next is not really accurate. His basic nature is the same throughout the Bible. He is consistent based upon his basic nature. At times he punishes when necessary, at times he shows his mercy and grace. Not unlike a parent dealing with his children. He gave us a free will to do as we choose. If we go against him we face the consequences. If we follow him we reap the benefits. The decision is ours.

  Scientists will go on forever to attempt to prove the origin of life. To date they are far short of the goal to prove that life came into being without some outside influence to get it started. The first cloud of chemicals that started the Big Bang had to come from somewhere or you have to believe that it always existed. If you can believe that a cloud of chemicals always existed and was eternal, it is not hard to believe that God has always existed and is eternal. Particularly when you have evidence beyond the starting point to say that God still exists and has worked in the lives of his people.

  God Bless you.
• 
  109

  Matthew Makes Another Error

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

  the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

  (matthew 1:8-10 niv).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  The argument that the authors of Mark and the other Gospels made up the stories from the old testmant makes no sense. First, the old testament references do not match the stories from the Gospels. To say so is an ad hoc argument that has no cause and effect analysis. Just because there is what you would consider a similar story in the old testament doesn't mean is was copied. Further, the stories that you say were copied are not even close. Second, the writers of the Gospels would have no reason to promote jesus as the Messiah falsely. he was not what the Jewish people were looking for. He never led an army and he never belived in overruling Roman authority. It makes no sense.
• 
  109

  Matthew Makes Another Error

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

  the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

  (matthew 1:8-10 niv).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  Joseph,

  Your argument is illogical and it begs the question. You assume no one knew of Jesus' acts just because only a few chose to write them down. If Josephus was going to prove that Jesus did not exist he wrote at a time when he could have investigated those who were still alive and proven he never existed or never did the acts that others were attributing to him. Instead he acknowledged his existence and said that he was credited with doing many wonderful things. From his point of view he wouldn't say anything more. He had sold out his heritage to save his life when Rome took over Jerusalem and wrote from a slightly twisted viewpoint. Also, he did not believe in Jesus so why would he say more than he did? What other historians were out there writing history from which we could expect more written evidence? 50 A.D. is not 2001.

  The same goes for the Roman historians. When they talked of Jesus they talkled about him in negative terms. Why would they recount what he did?

  You say we have no prove of what Jesus did. We do. Its the Gospels. These were written years after the oral stories were passed down by eyewitnesses to the event. It was Jewish practice back then to pass history orally. They were good at it and particularly careful. Even the books of the old testament were not written at the time the events occurred, but the Jewish people accept them as being accurate.

  If a miracle worker came into my town today and did alot of work and then thirty years later I wrote about what he did it would be easy to investigate whether it was true or not. Simply go to where I said it occurred and ask people if it ever happened. Thirty years is not that long particularly in ancient times.

  Do you believe Alexander the Great did all that has been attributed to him when his first biography was written more than 400 years after his death?

  You may chose not to believe the Gospels, but by your argument you would never be able to believe any written history.
• 
  109

  Matthew Makes Another Error

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

  the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

  (matthew 1:8-10 niv).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  Typo error. If you do not believe in Hinduism, Buddism, or Islam you will end up in their version of Hell. Sorry.

  And one last comment to SIXOFNINE- I am not arrogant enough to believe that my words would cast judgment on anyone.
• 
  109

  Matthew Makes Another Error

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

  the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

  (matthew 1:8-10 niv).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  SixofNine, your comment shows where your heart is. By making a comment that you think I am a bigot do you really think you are making a point? Not only is it wrong about me, but it is also wrong about Christianity and the God we believe in. Do you really think that God wants the good people of India to not believe in him? Do you really think that the people who spend their lives in India (like Mother Theresa) trying to conduct missionary work really don't care about those people and "throw them out like the chaff"? Why then are there numerous Christian relief organizations working in India trying to help these people with food, shelter and other things they need?

  If you think that atheists feel the same way about these people and their plight, give me the name of more than two atheist based organizations that are doing as much as the Christian based organizations are. Or would you rather just sit back and poke bigoted fun at the people who are trying to help them?

  From personal experience I can tell you that it breaks their heart and from all accounts of God in the Bible it breaks his heart too that his message is being rejected. You may not agree with the judgment that is outlined in the Bible and you can use that as your excuse not to believe and that is your choice. But true Christians who are doing work in India truly love those people and are trying to help them. They understand the judgment they are trying to save them from and more importantly they understand the Heaven they are trying to get them to. They do not think of them as "chaff".

  Do you even know the message that is expressed in Christianity before you make a comment like that?

  Abaddon, the question you asked is not one of morality. If it is, whose morality? Your's, the man down the street? Is it your definition of morality that God should not apply his judgment evenly to everyone? Should he treat some people different? Or should his judgment be applied evenly across the board? I would think you would want him to apply his judgment fairly to everyone to be considered moral. He does, thus if you have heard the message and are of the age to decide for your self and you make the decision not to believe, that is your free will ( the free will he gave you according to the Bible). The consequences of that decision are what they are. But so are the consequences of making the different decision to believe. And those are great.

  *and all of the christians of all colors yelled Amen and reached out to the bigoted atheists in love*

  Do you know anything about Hinduism,Buddism, or Islam?. All of these religions are exclusive religions. They teach that their way is the only way to what they think is Heaven. Thus they believe if you believe in the way they do you will end up in their version of Hell. So is their God moral as you define it? Is their God treating all of the Christians immorally if they reject Hinduism?

  The reason I believe the visonaries in the Bible is because those that have prophecized in the Bible through visions have had those prophecies come true.

  Have a great holiday and thank those Christians who promoted Christmas for your time off. God Bless
• 
  109

  Matthew Makes Another Error

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

  the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

  (matthew 1:8-10 niv).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  I am making no comment on the people of India. I was only answering your thought that God must be unfair if there are so many people here who do not believe him despite years of missionary work. For whatever reason they choose not to believe even though the opportunity to do so has been given to them is not God's fault, nor is his judgment unfair.

  The argument that the Gospels were not written by the people they are named for is not founded. First, Matthew is dated between 50 and 60 A.D. a mere twenty years or so after Jesus lived.( This is based upon chapter 24:2 that mentions the fall of Jerusalem as a future event which took place in 70 A.D.). Matthew would have been known at the time to have been a tax collector who would not have been well liked by the Jewish population. There would not have been any additional credibility to include his name for a fake writer.It would have been much better for a fake writer to add the name Peter or Paul. Second, the other "Gospels" that did not become part of the canon were obviously written by others and were much later than the four that were included. Third, there is no question that Luke wrote Acts. In the beginning of Acts he mentions his other book written to the same person. Finally, the historian Papias wrote in A.D. 125 that John wrote his Gospel and the historian Irenaeus wrote in A.D. 180 the following:
  
  "Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us his writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book, the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia"

  It is clear that the people of their day knew that those whose names were attached to the Gospels were the authors. The idea that they may not be is a new one.

  You are not correct to assume that Biblical scholars have discounted what Josephus and Tacitus wrote about Jesus. In fact Tacitus wrote "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..." Beyond this Jesus is mentioned by other early historians such as the Talmud, Pliny the Younger and others as a true historical figure.

  The thought that because the Gospels were written decades after Jesus lived they could not have been accurate is not in keeping with other biographies of ancient people. For example, the first biography of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after his death. By comparison the Gospels were much, much , closer to the actual events. And they were written by people who were eyewitnesses or who interviewed eyewitnesses.

  You misinterpret the question about other stories of mythology and how they relate to Jesus. What I was saying is that although these beings were in folklore before Jesus, did they have the specific attributes that Jesus had before he was written about or were attributes added to them in response to his existence? And is this proven by documents written before Jesus? Also, do not go on generalities about these beings and tie them to Jesus. Make sure the comparisons are detailed enough to warrant discussion.

  The idea that Peter or Paul were not insane is not for me to prove. If you want to discount what they wrote as being the ideas from insane people, that would be for you to prove. But I will say that there is no evidence in the remainder of their lives that they were insane.

  The idea that they died for what they knew to be true is said to defeat the thought that they made something up and than stuck to that lie until they died. Jim Jones is no comparison.He may have died for what he believed to be true, but do you think that he died for what he knew was a lie?

  In various arguments you all have said that these men were either frauds, insane, dillusional but in good faith, or believed something to be an act they saw when they really didn't see it. What evidence do you have for any of these ideas? They are all just theories on ways to discount what these men wrote, but there is no evidence for any of them. The mountain of evidence is that these men wrote what they did because they knew it to be the truth and then went to their deaths because of it.

  Joseph, your thought that the reasoning is circular is not correct. If Jesus did not exist, the skeptics back then would not have had to say they walked the sea of Galilee with him and he healed no one. They would simply say he never existed. The evidence shows otherwise.

  As for "facts", what do you think the notion that Jesus was crucified by Pontious Pilot is? The name of his executioner is named. That fact could have easilty been refuted if it wasn't true.
• 
  109

  Matthew Makes Another Error

  by JosephAlward in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

  the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

  (matthew 1:8-10 niv).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RWC

  The feeding of the five thousand occurs in Matthew (14:25), Mark and Luke(9:12). Since Matthew was one of the twelve he is counted as being there on the day that the five thousand were fed. Does this mean that he simply imagined that these people were fed or is he lying about it?