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.
waton, "does that mean the 2 great J's have to feel no compassion because they know within a day or two by their reckoning, they will resurrect them all?" Touché!
StephaneLaLiberte Yes, the whole issue of sovereignty thing as well is lacking... Sinon t'es français? :)
blueberryk9 "There is more to man's history than revealed in the biblical accounts! The Bible also lacks a good explanation of why we find ourselves as we are." Definitely
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.
waton, it says he cried because he felt compassion toward those crying, not because he himself was sad at Lazarus' death since he knew he was going to resurrect him.
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.
Aha, yes. But I wonder how someone who holds that opinion could consider himself a Christian. I once tried to study it, but got lost in theological details I couldn't understand :) Back then, I was still a Witness and I wasn't doubting the value of the ransom anyway.
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..
Here's something someone answered me on Reddit:
"My opinion is that most of the damage done by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is due to the unintended consequences of their actions, rather than the intention to do damage to people. The real problem is their callous, pharisaical attitude caused by indoctrination from the time they were children (4 of the current members) or very young men between the ages of 17 and 22 (Herd, Loesch, Morris and Cook).
For example, I dont believe any of those men want to have children raped. But Jackson did not even bother to study the cases of the two victims that testified at ARC. He obviously did not care. He only wanted to defend Watchtower and his own position. The evidence the court record and video of his testimony. That callous and uncaring attitude is at the root of the CSA policy formulated and enforced by the Governing Body."
That was a real eye opened. I actually read it several times. Before his/her message, I could only conceive of their errors being either "honest mistakes" or "done with evil intent". I couldn't see evil intent, so I figured they were honest mistakes. Here's what I learned: There's a "middle ground" between these two extremes. I'll paraphrase him/her because I have no better way of putting it: "most of the damage done by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is due to the unintended consequences of their actions, rather than the intention to do damage to people. The real problem is their callous, pharisaical attitude caused by indoctrination". That's a real eye opener. Thought I'd share it here :)
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.
Consider these excerpts from the Bible and the publications:
Today, as an apostate, I no longer believe in Jehovah, Jesus or the Bible. But I'm still interesting in knowing what you guys think of it. Did you ever think about it when you were a Witness or when you left? Do you think I'm missing something? I'd love to hear your comments!
Side note: In previous posts, many people posted off-topic posts or posts that accused of being an undercover JW, biased, a troll, and other stuff. This was an annoyance. I kindly ask you to refrain from hijacking this thread. If you'd like to discuss anything else with me, please invite me to another thread or send me a private message. Thank you very much!
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..
Thank you, cofty! I'm reading Franz's books, but have never heard of Carl Johanson. I'll look him up. Thanks for the rest as well.
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..
ZindagiNaMilegiDobaara so what do you understand the public declaration/confession of faith to refer to?
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..
2+2=5 I've labeled apostates apostates. A person who renounces his religion is an apostate. I'm an apostate - proudly so. I didn't mean it in a derogatory way.
I haven't labeled the JW's as amazing. I said most of them are. That's my personal experience and belief. You're free to disagree of course. And to think I'm a biased troll.
And by launching accusations about me instead of keeping with the topic I started, you're hijacking the thread. So, yes, PLEASE stop feeding me :)
To 2+2=5 and everyone in general: I'll answer messages that are relevant to the thread and just ignore the rest, particularly when they're personal accusations. If there's anything else you'd like to discuss, please invite me to another thread or contact me on the side. Thank you!
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..
ZindagiNaMilegiDobaara they did tune down their preaching and start meeting in smaller groups in Russia, like they always do when there's persecution. I don't see any evil intent there. Let me know if I'm missing something :)
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..
Thank you, cofty!
Let me ask a couple of questions:
"I have not the slightest doubt that they know they have misunderstood the blood issue". From what I read on your other post, I agree they're wrong, even from a scriptural point of view. But what makes you think they know they're wrong?
What makes you think they know that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 B.C?
Regarding the UN, what were the real reasons, in your opinion? I've read about the subject, but I haven't read anything claiming they had hidden reasons.
I'm not disregarding the rest, BTW :) These just happen to be the only ones I have question marks about.
