Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching about the soul did not originate with the Watchtower. This is one that Russell adapted from Adventists. Various other sects through the centuries have viewed soul in the Bible the same as the Watchtower. Having given it some independent study, it is one of the very few things I agree with the Watchtower on as far as how it was viewed by the Bible writers.
Posts by Zero
-
13Man Has a Soul. What do You Believe Now?
by Treborr Jones ini was just wondering if the ex-jw's here now believe you have a soul, or do you still hold on to the borgs claims of man/woman not having a soul.
i for one know we do.
-
-
-
35
What first made you doubt?
by Simon inthere will be one about what your favourite color is later... .
-
-
Zero
First doctrinal doubt: I realized I could see no basis in the Bible for belief that anyone would not die the human death as a price of sin. Proceeded to 'wait on Jehovah', but this seeded the initial doubt that God was revealing 'His' plan through the Watchtower.
What finally convinced?
No one certain thing. It was an accrual of issues over several years, both doctrinal and policy, which seemed to get worse with time 'waiting on Jehovah'. Probably what it boiled down to was the emphasis of organization over scripture while denying it. It was just too obvious, and kept getting more so. Disfellowshipping people - essentially casting them off as damned - for wimsical organizational reasons rather than scriptural reasons weighed heavily. The final straw came when it appeared a sister who had tried hard to measure up, finally left an abusive marriage, and was destined for disfellowshipping over it. That moment is one in my life that stands out. -
30
Really Simple question for the fundys
by hippikon inreally simple question for the fundys.
why is god invisible?
-
-
Zero
Waiting: Its nice to meet you too.
Hipikon: You ask "Why is God hiding?" I didn't know 'He' was.
Wind is invisible - or is it? Would you say wind is hiding in a hurricane or a tornado?
Wind and spirit are the same word in Greek.
Then again, maybe spirit is made of something like neutrinos. They can go through anything, and they are invisible. Science is very fascinated with its discovery. (Excuse personifying 'science' in this case. How 'Hebrew' of me!) -
30
Really Simple question for the fundys
by hippikon inreally simple question for the fundys.
why is god invisible?
-
-
Zero
Cuz "God is love" and love is invisible. So are the other attributes that are God. Creativity is invisible also. The best things in life, including life, are invisible.
However, I want to qualify that I am not a "fundy". -
18
Religion - A builder or destroyer?
by Zero init has oft been presented here that religion has been destructive to the utmost, an inhibiter and counter-productive in human development and civilization.
there is always the other side of the proverbial coin.
when you think about it, where would the world of science and history be if not for religious motivation?.
-
-
Zero
Like I've already stated:
The huge structures that have survived to our time were thought to be for relious purposes (ziggurats, pyramids). What else can I say? -
18
Religion - A builder or destroyer?
by Zero init has oft been presented here that religion has been destructive to the utmost, an inhibiter and counter-productive in human development and civilization.
there is always the other side of the proverbial coin.
when you think about it, where would the world of science and history be if not for religious motivation?.
-
-
Zero
Hi, Larc:
Of course there's no way of knowing for sure whether the chicken or the egg came first. But its my impression that the first things that we might consider technologies and early sciences involved creating huge structures (temples) which required design and organization of great numbers of workers. This drive to please the gods is what motivated people in groups and numbers to pool their creative powers to accomplish great feats. Most things of great achievement, as it appears in civilization beginnings, were great monuments and structures that related to worship. I may be wrong, but that's the general impression I get. You might be very right that science and religion developed symoltaneously, but I tend to think religion preceded technology. jmo. -
18
Religion - A builder or destroyer?
by Zero init has oft been presented here that religion has been destructive to the utmost, an inhibiter and counter-productive in human development and civilization.
there is always the other side of the proverbial coin.
when you think about it, where would the world of science and history be if not for religious motivation?.
-
-
Zero
But Philo, Christianity came long long long after the beginning of science, technology and culture. Why are people having a problem understanding that my reference is to the roots of civilization, not long into its development? Think ancient Mesopotamia - "the cradle of civilization", etc.
-
18
Religion - A builder or destroyer?
by Zero init has oft been presented here that religion has been destructive to the utmost, an inhibiter and counter-productive in human development and civilization.
there is always the other side of the proverbial coin.
when you think about it, where would the world of science and history be if not for religious motivation?.
-
-
Zero
Larc, I agree that most wars of the so-call "first world" powers are driven by economics. I also suspect that the economics of generosity could have a great deal of influence on other wars that have been mentioned.
Simon and Francois - I don't dispute the role that religion has played in wars in the past few centuries. When I say that religion gave a "jump start" motivation to science, technology and culture, I'm referring WAY back, to the very beginnings of what we refer to as "civilization" when and where they began in the "Fertile Cresent" from Egypt and Mesopotamia in the region of ancient Babylonia. These were the very beginnings, the root of modern civilization, particularly of the western world. Again, example would be the ziggurats and pyramids that tell us so much about those early civilizations. Was it not religion that motivated such awsome and mysterious constructions, without which we might know little or nothing about those early civilizations?
Hipikon: The towering structures that embodied extraordinary efforts to build and the artistry incorporated is how we learn much of what we know about the former cultures and know how scientifically advanced they were. How they achieved constructing some of these magnificant structures is baffling to modern scientists and archaeologists. We know from these that they had an advanced system for mathematics and other sciences, as well as writing and art. We are still learning from them. I tend to think these achievements were motivated by religious conviction, rather than political. And in the course, science and technology developed and has eventually come to dominate.
-
16
Is this site only for x-jws???
by silver252525 inhi guys!.
i would just like to know if this site is only for ex-jws or what?.
i have not been here long but from what i have seen i wanna think so:(
-
-
Zero
Silver:
to Zero,
2 Pet. 2:1, 3 Shows that false teachers will abound. Bringing in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them.
Isa. 32:6 ...the senseless ones will speak mare senselessness...
Acts 20:30...men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away deciples after them selves. 2 Thessalonians 2:3...let no man seduce you... -Heb:312-lack of faith; Heb.10:32-39-abandoment of right morals; heeding counterfeit words-2Pet2:1-3; 1Ti.4:1-3;2Ti.2:16-19; trying to be declared righteous by means of law-Ga5:2-4Having been associated with the Witnesses, I am aware of these scripture texts, and even more. But where does it define these as "apostates". These scriptures do NOT apply ONLY TO FORMER JEWS (or former adherents), they apply toward EVERYONE outside of the belief. By the scriptures you cite, everyone not a Jehovah's Witness might be an "apostate". So why do Jehovah's Witnesses apply the term "apostate" only to former JWs. You say their definition is based on the BIBLE not the dictionary, but you have not cited any scripture to support their private definition of "apostate".
-
6
Apostate vs Evil Slave
by drahcir yarrum ini've been churning this issue over in my mind of late.
do i want to be considered by the gb as "apostate" or "evil slave"?
i'm thinking that "apostate" is too mild for the contempt i have for the wts.
-
-
Zero
I thought the secret sign was to greet one another with a kiss. -smile-