Yes, you cannot speak against "spirit-guided organization"
Posts by venus
-
3@ all J.W.'s - How true is this "adjusted" scripture!
by The Fall Guy in(matthew 12:32) “....whoever speaks a word against the son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the g.b.
or the org, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come.”.
-
-
-
-
-
venus
Dawkins must have a point because of the following:
Law says ‘you can lend money to the poor, but you should not charge interest’ (Exodus 22:25)
‘Leave something for the poor when glean your vineyard’ (Leviticus 19:10)
But see how far Jesus departed from such superficial Laws when he said: “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind.” (Luke 14:12, 13) He even indirectly hinted that such laws are not from God (Mathew 5:44-48)
-
-
-
venus
Cofty,
I was reffering to conventions and scriptures of Jesus's time, not limiting only to the Law. Even Richard Dawkins shares this view: “Jesus was not content to derive his ethics from the scriptures of his upbringing. He explicitly departed from them. ... Since a principal thesis of this chapter is that we do not, and should not, derive our morals from scripture, Jesus has to be honoured as a model for that very thesis.”--God Delusion
-
-
-
venus
Cofty,
It is true that Jesus "rejected the way the OT was being interpreted by the Pharisees."
But is also true that he undermined the authority of Bible writers like Moses and mixed two conflicting creation accounts when only either of them is true. (Mark 10:1-9)
When God made Solomon the wisest king that ever lived, stating there would never be another like him (1 Kings 3:12) Jesus simply declared he is greater than Solomon. (Mathew 12:42; Luke 11:31)
Jesus gives no thought to the correctness of what he speaks of OT events/persons. For example, when Ahimalech was the high priest when David ate the show-bread (1 Sam.21:1-6) Jesus declares it was Abiathar who was the high priest when David ate the show-bread. (Mar 2:26)
-
6
And the capital of Israel was ...
by Doug Mason inthe capital of biblical israel was samaria.. jerusalem was the capital of judah/benjamin.. the modern state of israel is not named after the biblical nation of israel.
it is named after a man.
it is named after jacob, the lion of judah, who was later given the name of israel.
-
-
venus
The very inception of Israel is shrouded in mystery. The multiple destruction of their temple with all the scrolls, and even The destruction of secular Library of Alexandria which also resulted in the loss of many scrolls and books .... all gave opportunities to create histories later. They used God for their own purpose--but it backfired. They put it in the scriptures that the very name Israel was given by God. Israel means one who struggles with God till He blesses in return which in the long run did not happen in the case of Israel as a nation. Its capital Jerusalem was described by Jesus as "Killer of prophets" (Mat 23:37). Even now Israel is not in a position to enjoy peace being surrounded by Arab nations inimical to them.
-
31
What's destroying Watchtower!
by UnshackleTheChains infor me, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it's the extreme shunning policy.. at a recent sunday meeting, i listened to a complete brainwashed sister saying how important it was that we stick to the shunning policy even if it is a close relative.. i just thought.
wtf.
there is a big difference between the brainwashed and the awoken class!.
-
-
venus
It is too obvious that shunning policy cannot be of divine origin as it undercuts the most important statement of Jesus in Mathew 5:44-48. Hence it is better that JWs stick to their shunning policy. They do not know how much damage it does to themselves. Hitler used to shoot down messenger that brings a bad news of any mission failed. Hence his own people refrained from giving him such news which gave him a false feeling that he is on the path to the third Reich and believed that he was creating a third German empire. Let WT too behave like Hitler.
-
9
Does the Watchtower favor interpretation over translation, especially in the case of Exodus 15:3?
by Poppy520 inexodus 15:3, "the lord is a man of war: the lord is his name.
" kjv, esv, asv.. exodus 15:3, "jehovah is a powerful warrior.
jehovah is his name.
-
-
venus
I agree with Earnest fully. In some language sweet liver is used in place of sweet heart/darling. Hence a wise translator would try to convey the thought rather than its literal word. You seem to favor the doctrine of trinity hence want Ex 15:3 to be “man of warrior”. But even this would only add to the problem. If Jesus was part of Trinity, it would mean wherever he goes, the other two inseparable parts too were with him. Thus God came down and got crucified himself on the cross instead of manly arranging the crucifixion of Satan the Devil the first sinner. Moreover, story of God the Father putting his son to death, or employing people to do it (for that is the plain language of the story) cannot be told by a parent to a child; and to tell him that it was done to make mankind happier and better is making the story still worse- as if mankind could be improved by the example of murder; and to tell him that all this is a mystery is only making an excuse for the incredibility of it.
-
12
A little critique/commentary on the first of the new Public Watchtowers (No.1 2018) - Corrections and additions welcomed
by doubtfull1799 in“all scripture is inspired of god and beneficial.”—2 timothy 3:16.”.
what/which scripture was paul referring to?
how is it possible to know with any certainty without being speculative or dogmatic?
-
-
venus
Hi nowwhat?I liked your observation that “there are hundreds of millions of people that live by this code that have not read one verse of the bible. Or are not Christians”
Nietzsche is one of the spectacular examples. He had his share of what we call suffering—chronic diseases, his marriage proposals being rejected more than once …etc. Still, He advised that there is nothing wrong with the way the world is. If one lives along with the way this world is, leaves oneself to it, and does not count on the superficial items such as religion, science etc., then there is a new life in affirming a new way of seeing things as they are--though full of suffering and pain, but with joy, in which there is no longer pessimism. Just by changing or converting one’s conventional or unconsciously suppressed view and being able to accept the new way, one is totally free from falsity. “This world is the will to power” and one oneself is “also this will to power,” which is the only truth and reality for him. This affirmation of reality of the eternal recurrence with joy is called amor fati. (a love of what happens). In effect he was living example of what Jesus said in Luke 17:21
-
-
-
venus
JW notion of sin and perfection is no different from Christendon's view. A person may sometimes get swelling on his leg and may have limped a few times—but he is never called lame. Similarly, a person may at times slip into selfishness and use his free-will to his own harm or to the harm of others—but this does not make him a sinner because the ability to perform virtuous acts also exists in him. If one’s occasional sinning does not make him a sinner, sin of another person such as his parents (immediate or distant) can also never make him a sinner.
But an insightful one would not agree because he finds an avalanche of proofs against this. We find variety of people acting/reacting differently in same situation: Some do more righteous acts, some do more sinful acts, and others mix them in varying degrees, one-time sinners changing into saints, one-time saints changing into sinners, some very poor people who refuse to steal, and some very wealthy people who steal in various ways… etc. This shows people choose to act the way they like which means they are not sinners from birth—resulting in all sorts of people from sinless to the sinful ones. Interestingly, even Bible makes many references to some sinless persons who lived in the ancient times (Genesis 5:24; Job 1:8; Psalm 18:23; Ezekiel 14:14; Luke 1:6 …etc.) and human capacity to perform righteousness. (Habakkuk 2:4; Hebrews 10:38).
If we are not sinners from birth, when does sin arise?
Our experience shows that beliefs and attitudes are linked. For example, if one truly believes in the principle “one reaps what he sows”, he would not display a casual attitude towards life, but he would think before acting and be alert to do good to others and to avoid doing harm to others as far as possible. That means from beliefs, attitudes are formed; and from attitudes, thoughts are formed; from thoughts, action is produced; from repeated action, tendency and habit are produced which in turn determine one’s destiny. For example, a person steals for first time and he was not caught; then he goes on repeating it and a tendency to steal comes into existence. Similarly, a person chooses to give joy to others and stop giving sorrow to others, and he reaps accordingly which in turn makes him repeat the same and a tendency to do good comes into existence.
-
12
A little critique/commentary on the first of the new Public Watchtowers (No.1 2018) - Corrections and additions welcomed
by doubtfull1799 in“all scripture is inspired of god and beneficial.”—2 timothy 3:16.”.
what/which scripture was paul referring to?
how is it possible to know with any certainty without being speculative or dogmatic?
-
-
venus
Interestingly, Nietzsche has elaborated the above subject in his Eternal Recurrence. More and consolidated details are available in Nietzsche, The Will to Power (New York: Vintage Books, 1968)