Posts by Seeker

64

Bush's speech -- I'll be the first to admit...

by Seeker in

jw
friends

...it was an effective speech.

i was impressed, and thought it only fair to say so here given the recent political discussions.

Seeker

Hawkaw,

No Bush was Bush last night. You just bought into the "con" that Bush was weak.

hehe, so if I think like you, I'm a clear thinker, but if I disagree with you, I've been conned. Yes, good argument there.

I haven't been conned. Give me credit for independent thinking. My view of Bush comes from his own mouth. This is the first time he's spoken where I felt he was in control. Every other time, he's appeared hesitant, unsure of himself. My opinion, not yours, but not "conned" by commentators either. Just my view of his own words when he speaks.

I did notice, early on last night, a trait I hadn't picked up on before: he tends to pause in the middle of the sentence, even where a comma doesn't belong. He'll say a few words...stop....catch his breath...say the rest of the sentence. Perhaps I've been subconsciously picking up on this extraneous pause and having that translate in my mind to "hesitant." Whatever it was, last night, after he got rolling and stopped doing that William Shatner pause, he sounded like a president. For the first time.

64

Bush's speech -- I'll be the first to admit...

by Seeker in

jw
friends

...it was an effective speech.

i was impressed, and thought it only fair to say so here given the recent political discussions.

Seeker

larc,

He is the right man to lead us into our very uncertain future.

Well, to be honest, I can't think of a man less-qualified to take this role, but he has experienced people around him, and he may rise to the challenge, and I thought tonight was the first time I heard him speak and found it a good speech.

64

Bush's speech -- I'll be the first to admit...

by Seeker in

jw
friends

...it was an effective speech.

i was impressed, and thought it only fair to say so here given the recent political discussions.

Seeker

one,

According to Seeker 45 minutes of good speaking is too much credit for the man.

I don't understand what you mean. I gave him credit for a good job tonight. How is that "too much credit" to give him?

64

Bush's speech -- I'll be the first to admit...

by Seeker in

jw
friends

...it was an effective speech.

i was impressed, and thought it only fair to say so here given the recent political discussions.

Seeker

...it was an effective speech. I was impressed, and thought it only fair to say so here given the recent political discussions.

22

Who's wanting to see this??

by Stiffy in

jw
friends

ok so i hear from my bro, that he hears the fbi is saying somthing might happen on the 22nd.

the other day there were several low flying planes around the nuclear station in our area.

they were unknown, and there was not to be any schedualed flights at the time in the area.

Seeker

The 22nd was a date the terrorists evidently planned for a second wave of their attack (with the events on the 11th being the first wave). However, now that the authorities have found this out, they are arresting people left and right. I suspect nothing will happen on the 22nd. And if it does, even after the nation is on the highest alert, and they know about this original plan ahead of time, and they have been arresting suspects in advance....well, just forget about it, cuz if they can pull it off under these circumstances, they can do it whenever they want. Basically, it will then be the end of virtually all civil liberties in this country as the authorities go into extreme lockdown paranoid mode. America will cease to be America, at least for a while.

But I really will be surprised if anything happens on the 22nd. Remember, that was the plan BEFORE the authorities found out about it. Now they know.

5

No apolgies for God's judgements

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

here's another answer for you, julie, i again do your research for you!.

>1chronicles 21:14 70,000 people die by god's hand because david to a census.

i fail to see the enlightenment here.

Seeker

Rex,

Instead of cutting-and-pasting answers from web sites (or just pointing to web sites), why not answer the questions on your own? Do you not have reasoning abilities? You are acting just as you did back in your JW days when someone asked you a question you felt uncomfortable about. "Um, let me research that in the WT and I'll get back to you." You have a mind, use it!

Now, as to Julie's question, you pasted a bunch of stuff, but none of it addressed her question: Why kill 70,000 others when it was David who sinned?

(Don't even start with that nonsense about how that plague wasn't so bad compared to other events back then. Death is death, and here we are talking about more than 10 times the number of innocent lives lost at WTC.)

5

WT View on Unity of Belief (1 Corinthians 1:10)

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

you may have read from my other posts that i'm going to be a victim of the wt inquisition as i've told an elder that i disagree with the view that god is using an organization and that organization is the wts.

i know the elders will argue the point that we cannot have disunity in the congregation with one member believing one thing and another something else.

they will use 1 corinthians 1:10 as proof that we must be united in belief.

Seeker

Just because NYT asked...

However, such examples provide no grounds for our doing the same. Why not? Many of such denominations allow widely divergent views among the clergy and the laity because they feel they cannot be certain as to just what is Bible truth.

Similarly, the WTS cannot be certain as to just what is Bible truth, as they repeatedly admit in their doctrine of 'new light.' They excuse their many mistakes by claiming the light gets brighter, but that they do not yet have the full range of truth. Just like all those other denominations.

They are like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day who were unable to speak as persons having authority, which is how Jesus taught. (Matthew 7:29)

The WTS is not Jesus. Only Jesus had that authority, something the WTS has never consistently claimed for themselves, rather excusing themselves by stating they are Bible students who strive to understand the Bible, not teaching with the same authority as Jesus. Thus the WTS is more like the scribes and the Pharisees than they would like to admit, especially when they go beyond what is written to make laws (such as deciding which blood fractions are OK, and which are not).

Moreover, to the extent that religionists believe in interfaith, they are obligated not to take divergent beliefs too seriously.
But taking such a view of matters has no basis in the Scriptures. Jesus did not make common cause with any of the sects of Judaism.

Jesus was setting up a new faith, apart from Judaism, setting aside the Mosaic Law covenant. How is this in any way similar to interfaith movements between Christian faiths?

Jews of those sects professed to believe in the God of creation and in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the Law of Moses. Still, Jesus told his disciples to "watch out . . . for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Matthew 16:11, 12; 23:15) Note also how strongly the apostle Paul stated matters: "Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed." Paul then repeated that statement for emphasis.—Galatians 1:8, 9.

Again, this was during the infancy of Christianity, when there was a real struggle against the dominant, Mosaic Law-influenced Jews. Today we do not have this unique situation.

Galations 1:8,9 is unintentionally hilarious when applied to the WTS when they erroneously made up a teaching about alternative military service that forced JWs to go to prison without any Biblical support for the teaching (what they said, when they discontinued this teaching). Does the WTS view itself accursed?

Teaching dissident or divergent views is not compatible with true Christianity, as Paul makes clear at 1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." (New International Version)

And not be fooled into being swayed by Judaism, not the same thing as Christians using their conscience rather than being forced into conformity within an overall Christian belief system.

At Ephesians 4:3-6 he further stated that Christians should be "earnestly endeavoring to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace. One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons."

Look at that scripture: don't the differences between Christians, especially within one church, NOT involve the body of the Christ, the spirit, the Lord, the faith, the baptism, and God and Father of all? Those are basics. People within a church tend to believe these things the same. The variance involves more conscience matters, and Ephesians does not talk about that.

Was this unity to be achieved and maintained by each one's independently searching the Scriptures, coming to his own conclusions, and then teaching these?

Whoa! Where did "teaching" come in? People can believe what they want without necessarily jumping up to the pulpit. But the WTS includes this strawman so it can knock it down with...

Not at all! Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose "some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man." Yes, with the help of such ministers, congregational unity—oneness in teaching and activity—could be and would be possible.—Ephesians 4:11-13.

Strawman knocked down, while ignoring reality. Besides, Eph. 4:11-13 is talking about special gifts in the first century, "until we attain to the oneness in the faith." Again, this is talking about special circumstances back then while fighting against Judaizers. Today Christianity does not have to deal with this, and those gifts are gone.

Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah's Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Approved association with Jehovah's Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Here we see how those JWs who claim you can believe what you want as long as you keep quiet are wrong. The WTS, going beyond what is written, demands your very thoughts must conform to the ever-changing range of beliefs they teach. When they change (such as on alternative civilian service), you must change your very thoughts to match.

Do we have Scriptural precedent for taking such a strict position? Indeed we do! Paul wrote about some in his day: "Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus' sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.

This is different, for these were specifically apostate teachings, not mere conscience matters. Ironically, for decades the WTS taught that the heavenly resurrection had already occurred in the 1800s. So "on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection" the WTS should be rightly branded as apostates.

69

DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN

by Amazing in

jw
friends

some of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.

during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.

' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?

Seeker

Amazing,

Yes, I also am impressed that Bush's team has shown initial restraint rather than rushing off with guns blazing. I also agree with your assessment of Clinton's missle strike (damn, I still can't write a sentence like that about Clinton without thinking of double entendres).

However, I maintain that an intelligent person, even after stumbling and stating he will rid the world of evil-doers, would immediately correct himself. But perhaps Bush is so religious that he really does see this as a righteous war against evil. In any case, the next 3 years will give us penty of opportunities to see if Bush is smart or dumb.

21

How was the WTC attack any different than...

by Seeker in

jw
friends

...the attack on jericho by the israelites?.

yes, i know, this is controversial, but let's think about it.

we've been saying all week how the jw concept of armageddon is so horrible, for it teaches that god is about to do on a large-scale what we saw in new york and washington last week.

Seeker

gumby,

There is a difference here. God had promised the promised land to israel and the other people knew of God being with this nation by the things he had done in the past for them...crossing the red sea and pharoah's armys killed and victory for the jew's.They KNEW GOD WAS WITH THE JEWS.

Muslims feel Allah is with them, and does powerful works for them. They can't understand why we can't see what is so obvious to them. Yet we don't, do we? I would imagine it would have been similar back in Jericho's time. Sure, word would have spread about the victory of the Israelites, but what about Jericho's gods? Weren't they great? They would have thought so.

This kind of argument only holds for the true believers. All outsiders think, "yeah, yeah, whatever." Nothing Israel did impressed anyone else. Don't forget, the Bible was written by the Israelites, so they told it their way. The reality was probably quite different. The people of Jericho probably had their own legends about how their god kicked butt, and couldn't understand why Israel didn't believe in their god!

Every religion thinks they are right. Everyone else doesn't believe a word of it. So no matter how much bin Laden may have thought that we in America should really be worshipping the true God Allah, people in America didn't believe, just as those in Jericho weren't impressed with claims by Israel.

Also they were warned to let them through peacefully. Bin ladden didn't ask to come through peacefully.

Not so. The people of Jericho weren't asked to let Israel through peacefully. Israel was taking over, no questions asked, nothing Jericho could do to prevent it. The people of Jericho were in the way of what Israel wanted, and they were going to be killed for it. Just like bin Laden, who sees this as a holy struggle against the West that he feels threatens his religious ideals.

God also ordained them to pass thru jerico. God didn't ordain any of what has recently taken place.

Sez Israel. I'm sure Jericho thought differently. Similarly today, bin Laden feels he has God's blessing. The people of America think otherwise.

I dunno, seems very similar to me. It's all a matter of perspective. If you agree with the agressor's relgion, you justify the attack (as you justify Israel, since you agreed with their religion). If you disagree with the agressor's religion (as we in America do toward bin Laden's extremist form of Islam), you can't justify the attack.

69

DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN

by Amazing in

jw
friends

some of you have read posts here, and on other forums, in magazines and newspapers, and maybe watched tv commnetary that alleges president george w. bush is less than brilliant, perhaps under-qualified for office, etc.. evidence seems starkly missing from these allegations.

during campaign 2000, the media started painting gw as being mentally 'one can short of a six-pack.

' but, has anyone, and i mean anyone provided even an ounce of evidence to support this?

Seeker

Amazing,

I never said that was the only evidence that Bush isn't smart, just a recent example. Still, a smart person would never think to say something like that, even under pressure. Under pressure you see what a person is like at their core, and under pressure Bush reached for something foolish to say. As I did say, whenever he opens his mouth, instead of a bold leader (a la when Guiliani speaks), you get a hesitant person who doesn't appear to be that deep a thinker. Even a week after the disaster, W. is still going on about how remarkable it is that we have unity in this country and in the Congress (as if we would have anything else after such a disaster). He doesn't seem to realize what an obvious point this is to everyone. Not a deep thinker.

Here are a couple of links to stuff that you will totally discredit, since it comes from that awful liberal media that is in a conspiracy to hide the truth about this brilliant president (yes, that was sarcasm, and not directed at you). However, these articles (one of which is deliberately humorous, not serious -- after all, it's by Al Franken) do contain a number of funny quotes from the president. As you read those quotes, ask yourself where such stumbles would come from. Is this a smart man saddled with a speech impediment? Or does his entire life arc indicate that this is a man who has been content to ride along, and for the first time his words take on a greater import. For the first time, people are noticing what he says with great scrutiny. What they see is a man who doesn't appear to notice how shallow his thinking appears to be. Maybe he has a brilliant mind trapped in there somewhere, but I certainly haven't seen it yet.

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/02/dumb/index.html

http://www.uoregon.edu/~gmorgan/w/w.html

Now, I suppose one could counter-argue with school scores for Al Gore (though even Einstein had a problem in that area, so maybe it's not the best pure test of intelligence), though Gore has certainly applied himself (in a wonky way) ever since. But the best argument against Bush being that bright is the way Clinton's political enemies described his intelligence. They all marvelled at his intellectual capacity, and voracious desire for learning. These were his enemies! So where are Bush's enemies with their stories of his voracious desire for learning, his unquenchable thirst for books? Absent. Not even his political friends tell such stories.

So again, I ask, if this is all some liberal conspiracy to hide the truth about Bush being a smart guy, where is the positive evidence of his intelligence? Not scores in school, which can reflect a myriad of sources, but just plain smarts in real life. Let's see this evidence.

And finally I will point out that none of this matters. Bush being not the smartest whip in the lot is purely a genetic function. Oh sure, it would be nice if he wanted to develop his mind more than he seems to care to, but it doesn't make someone better or worse for being smart or dumb. We can't help that, and it doesn't matter. But since the subject was brought up, it's being discussed, even if it doesn't matter. And that's the only reason I wrote about the subject.