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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
I know he suffered, but:
1) He didn't have to suffer for the ransom to be offered. According to the Bible, it's his sacrificial death, not suffering, that saves us. A "soul for a soul".
2) The Bible says "there is no greater love than this, to suffer die for our friends", "we would barely suffer die for a good person, let alone for a sinner". So even if his suffering is somehow necessary for the ransom to be offered, we're being told that just his death was very costly to himself and to Jehovah.
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.
Sea Breeze, you didn't get my post. You're talking about the value of the ransom. I'm talking about its cost.
If the Bible is true, then the ransom is very valuable. But for Jehovah to have his son sleep for a day and a half doesn't come at a great cost to him.
If I'm dying of thirst and you give me a cup of water, then the cup is very valuable. But it doesn't cost you much. So I'll appreciate what you've done, and will love you for it; but if afterward you go around telling people "I gave Alain a cup of water; there is no greater love than this" or "one would barely give a good man a cup of water, but I gave it to a stranger/sinner", then you'd just be wrong.
Does this make sense?
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..
"I think what AlainA is trying to assert on this thread is that the GB men or past presidents of the WTS were just misinformed good willed and well intended people."
No, I'm not trying to assert that. I'm wondering about it.
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!
