Posts by AlainAlam

84

Do you have any evidence that the GB had bad intent?

by AlainAlam in

do you have any evidence that the gb had bad intent?

as opposed to blind faith/cognitive dissonance and honest mistakes.. i'm inclined to think they have the best of intentions and are just wrong (primarily because the bible is wrong), but i'm willing to consider the evidence otherwise..

AlainAlam

Incognito, thank you for taking the time to write this. You're right each could have his own criteria of what defines bad intent. I just wanted to say that I'm not asking for your thoughts just so I could dismiss them :)

You're also right when you say not everything is black and white. Just because their intentions are not pitch black doesn't automatically mean they are pure. That's something others have helped me understand.

"When honest mistakes are made, honest people will admit to those mistakes and will usually take steps to correct matters to prevent the same mistakes from being made going forward. What mistakes have the GB admitted to?"

That's a very good benchmark. I'm actually looking deeper into it.

84

Do you have any evidence that the GB had bad intent?

by AlainAlam in

do you have any evidence that the gb had bad intent?

as opposed to blind faith/cognitive dissonance and honest mistakes.. i'm inclined to think they have the best of intentions and are just wrong (primarily because the bible is wrong), but i'm willing to consider the evidence otherwise..

AlainAlam

DesirousOfChange Thank you for your input. That's a possibility.

84

Do you have any evidence that the GB had bad intent?

by AlainAlam in

do you have any evidence that the gb had bad intent?

as opposed to blind faith/cognitive dissonance and honest mistakes.. i'm inclined to think they have the best of intentions and are just wrong (primarily because the bible is wrong), but i'm willing to consider the evidence otherwise..

AlainAlam

Ding:

"What about the overlapping generations nonsense? Do you think the GB themselves believe this is really what Jesus was talking about?"

That IS nonsense indeed. Never bought it. Never even understood.

I think in 30 or 50 years or so, when the end doesn't come and they have to change it again, they will claim that "this generation" refers to the generation living during the great tribulation rather than that living in the last days.

49

I'm interested in discussing basic JW doctrines that you believe are unscriptural

by AlainAlam in

background info: although i'm an apostate, i don't hate jehovah's witnesses, or the organization itself.

actually i find that many derogatory comments here are extremely biased.

i think most of them are amazing people, and i wish more non-witnesses were like them.

AlainAlam

"This phenomenon, (JW's being sloppy with their own teachings for the sake of convenience) is not isolated. It's fairly easy to come up with examples."

I agree. I think the Bible is so full of contradictions and so ambiguous that every religion who claims to cling to it has to do "something" to escape it. Catholics will tend to ignore it altogether. Some Protestants will claim literal parts are not literal. JW will find mind-twisting interpretations. And all, to different extents, will ignore parts of it and focus on others.

30

A chance for the unrighteous?

by AlainAlam in

the witnesses teach that the "unrighteous" are brought back to life in order to learn about god during the 1000-year reign.

i don't think that's a bible teaching, for the following reason:.

1) no verse says that.

AlainAlam

Vanderhoven7, you're asking "Who are the anointed going to rule over with a rod of iron during the 1000 year reign". I do believe the "two class" thing is biblical (Gen 12 and 22 with the seed by means of which families/nations are blessed, Exodus with the Israelites being a nation of kings and priests, Isaiah with Israel being a light unto the nations and ruling over them, and so on, down to Revelation). But nothing in the Bible indicates that among the nations who will be ruled over during the 1000y reign will be unrighteous persons who will get a chance to learn and change. Or am I missing something?

45

What do you think of the ransom as proof of Jehovah's love?

by AlainAlam in

consider these excerpts from the bible and the publications:.

“no one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends” (joh 15:13).

“for hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die.

AlainAlam

Thank you Half banana! And everyone.

45

What do you think of the ransom as proof of Jehovah's love?

by AlainAlam in

consider these excerpts from the bible and the publications:.

“no one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends” (joh 15:13).

“for hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die.

AlainAlam

Anony Mous, thanks for sharing. I'm sorry to hear about the trauma (may I call it this way?) of losing someone, and the "why" struggle. Thank you for your post. I can see you're a very genuine person. Have you found any answer after leaving JW? Sorry to go off-topic.

And lol @ the nephew :) I hope your wife is doing OK after having lost her grandmother. Please convey my greetings and condolences to her if you find it appropriate.

45

What do you think of the ransom as proof of Jehovah's love?

by AlainAlam in

consider these excerpts from the bible and the publications:.

“no one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends” (joh 15:13).

“for hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die.

AlainAlam

Anders, I understand what you're saying. I don't believe in the Bible, but if I did, I would argue as follows:

There's a difference between my forgiving you and Jehovah forgiving you. They're the same word but they don't mean the same thing. When I forgive you, first of all, it implies that you made a mistake against me. And second of all, it implies that I don't bear a grudge against you because of what you did against me. When God forgives you, it has a whole different meaning. First, he holds you accountable to standards of righteousness - it's not just about you hurting him. Second, his "forgiving you" means viewing you as a righteous person, recognizing your status as blameless.
The difference between these two is illustrated by what happened when Jesus "forgave" people's sins, the Pharisees went all crazy, "what authority does he have to forgive sins?!" Obviously they knew that anyone could forgive anyone for offenses committed against them. But Jesus was forgiving in the larger sense, and that was tantamount to blasphemy in their eyes.

When we keep in mind this second, larger sense, we can better understand why the Bible mentions the needs for a ransom. Again, I'm not saying I believe it :)

45

What do you think of the ransom as proof of Jehovah's love?

by AlainAlam in

consider these excerpts from the bible and the publications:.

“no one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends” (joh 15:13).

“for hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die.

AlainAlam

Incognito, thanks for your input. I appreciate the added value you brought when you mentioned his suffering served to show why he was dying.

caves I understand, thanks for your input. I agree with the basic thought. It doesn't make sense. And sorry for the wording :)

45

What do you think of the ransom as proof of Jehovah's love?

by AlainAlam in

consider these excerpts from the bible and the publications:.

“no one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends” (joh 15:13).

“for hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die.

AlainAlam

cofty, in order to satisfy Bible requirements, blood would have to be shed and he would have to be hung on a tree. But these are not requirements of "righteousness", if you understand what I mean. Jehovah could omitted any mention of trees, and Jesus could die painlessly, and still be resurrected and appear before his god to intercede for us. So no real need for him to suffer to offer the ransom.

Sea Breeze, I understand your argument. You're stating Jesus should suffer all the crimes we have committed for the ransom to be valid. But:

1) I never read this thought in the Bible.

2) If "Let's take the common practice of abortion where an innocent baby has his body shredded into pieces. According to the Justice of God, I should have my own body treated the SAME way, since I am guilty of this crime", then Jesus should also be left to die of hunger because some people did, left to die of AIDS because some people did, and so on. That obviously was never the case.

3) The verses still say that the great proof of love was that he ~~"suffered"~~ "died" for our sins. So even if your argument is correct, these verses aren't.