If the world was Sooo bad and the organization was sooooo good why the exorortation not to give up?
excellent question
it was announced this week that the theme for the 3 day convention is "do not give up".
these are the words that are spoken to someone who is struggling and is in the process of giving up.
this theme tells me that many in the organization are tiring out and slowing down.
If the world was Sooo bad and the organization was sooooo good why the exorortation not to give up?
excellent question
if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.
the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.
we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.
You say “What he was saying is that a person should seek to make peace over seeking revenge. It was a fancy way of saying "you would seek revenge, but at what cost?"
If this is what Jesus originally meant,
1) What was the difficulty for Jesus to say the same by using the simple words such as ‘seek peace because revenge would bring a cycle of violence.
2) Why should Jesus set one standard for humans, and totally different for him as in Rev 22:12?
Even if we take it as you say, still we will have to ask “but at what cost?” Look at what India do. It goes on ‘turning the other cheek’ and others go on using it to their benefit.
some time ago, during the mid-week meeting, the sanctification of god’s name was being discussed (chapter 4 in ‘god’s kingdom rules’).
in paragraph nine we read that in the early period the jw’s viewed jesus ransom sacrifice as the most important teaching of the bible.
then they said they gave overbalanced importance to jesus, and nowadays, they say the sanctification of god’s name is the most important thing in the bible.. .
Sanctification and ransom are mutually exclusive subjects.
1) God’s name cannot be made unholy by a lie of Satan who himself is the product of somebody’s lie
2) Even if God’s name was made unholy by some lie, by permitting the innocent person to be murdered by sinners, and permitting such a death as a basis for the atonement for the sins of the sinners could only further tarnish God’s name
if we apply to the above verse jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that jesus did say it.. when i practiced it, i found that i was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more.
the same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance.
we know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means jesus’ advice is counterproductive).. but see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle god himself follows.
If we apply to the above verse Jesus’ own criterion (“every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”—Mathew 7:17) we will know that it is unlikely that Jesus did say it.
When I practiced it, I found that I was encouraging others to slap (whether in its literal or figurative sense) me more and more. The same is happening in large scale when countries practice tolerance. We know many countries who “turn the other cheek” when attacked, and it only invites more trouble (which means Jesus’ advice is counterproductive).
But see what happens if you return more than what you receive in view of the principle God Himself follows. (Exodus 20:5, 6) You probably succeed in correcting the other person. We have modern example in this regard. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor as part of their aggressive/imperialistic policy. And US made them reap the consequences [it was like jaws for tooth, not just tooth for tooth—bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima], and Japan learned the lesson: Japan stopped attacking other nations altogether.
Interestingly, even Jesus himself did not practice “show the other cheek” advice (which is of course attributed to Jesus). When slapped, Jesus made a manly response saying: “But if I'm speaking the truth, why are you beating me?” (John 18:23) Because he was yet to make his final statement on this: “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done” (Revelation 22:12) which means he has never told us to ‘turn other cheek also when slapped on the left.’
i’ve been reading up on the last days of the roman empire.
the rule became a tetrarchy; by four regional emperors or caesars.
the emperors had these necessary concerns; they always gave first consideration to the security of their own positions followed by the annual extraction of taxes and their territorial authority.
Really, a true comparison, and it is sinking
romans 13 : 1-7 "let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities" etc,"the existing authourities stand placed in their relative positions by god" 2".therefore he who opposers the authourity has taken a stand against the arrangement of god ,those who have taken a stand against it will recieve judgement to themselves "etc,etc,.."..to him who calls for honour such honour.".
isnt this plainly stating that christians should be supporting and playing along with the governments of this sytem of things ?
that it is in fact an arrangement of god ?
This only shows even Bible writers are in darkness as to why things are the way they are. If asked who is the ruler of the world, one would say God and others would say Satan. It is like asking what does red signal mean, and you hear some of traffic officials saying it means stop and others saying it means proceed.
why does the org sell so many properties?
i just was wondering... may be they are thinking of ditching 1914 doctrine and other teachings.
it will be not a new light but completely different religion.
Yes I agree with you. In effect they have already abandoned 1914 doctrine in their mind. It is only a matter of time they do it formally.
People can change, leaders can change--we saw it all happening in just one year, in 2016. In America, Donald Trump took the established Republican Party apart just as in Britain, Brexit hurt the Conservative establishment. Three years ago America was awash with the “we are the 99%“ activists and the “Occupy Wall Street“ squatters. The same Americans now voted in a member of the 1% that they were railing against a few months earlier.
this organization will never again be what it was by 2013-2014. .
they peaked in the form they were, i believe they were already falling apart in ways, but from the outside and to the majority r&f, things likely still seemed on the up and up.
browsing through the boards and just keeping my finger on the pulse of what's happening, this organization will never again be what it was.
My witness friends too agree with you in spirit. They say many old-timers are leaving, or the fire in them is dying, yet this is compensated by new comers.
if scriptures are written by people who have no sense of justice, it is natural that god would be misrepresented—something that happened to the biblical god.
to mention a few:.
1) david, murderer of the innocent and faithful, wrote portions of the bible.. 2) paul who set in opposition to genuine apostles who were directly trained by jesus himself sarcastically describing them as “superfine apostles” openly declared in some places that it was not spirit, but he was writing.
I got
inspired to write the above when I read “Pale Blue Dot” (thoughts of Carl
Sagan). Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it
everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human
being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and
suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic
doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and
destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love,
every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of
morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every
"supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our
species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic
arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors
so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a
fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of
one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some
other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill
one another, how fervent their hatreds.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance,
the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are
challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there
is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to
harbor life. There is nowhere else, at
least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes.
Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our
stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling
and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of
the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me,
it underscores our
responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot,
the only home we've ever known.
1) ananias “sold a piece of property… and kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.” (acts 5:1, 2) peter interpreted the whole incident as unbecoming of believers as they created the impression that they are giving full amount received from the sale of their property, and told the wife of ananias: “the feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” (acts 5:9).
death sentence for slightly exaggerating one’s generosity?.
2) in this incident, peter seems to be over-righteous!
If account is true, when Judas contemplated about making 30 pieces of silver by selling Jesus, he would have instantly been struck by God's almighty hand (especially so because mistake of Ananias and Sapphira is comparatively too insignificant