Doesn't the book of Esther mention a situation where Jews throughout the ancient world were in danger of being killed by wicked Haman's schemes? Couldn't that be the basis of the Gog of Magog "prophecy" in Ezekiel?
Island Man
JoinedPosts by Island Man
-
27
New explanation of Gog of Magog: Two Gogs?
by leaving_quietly ini just finished watching the recording of the talk at the annual meeting that re-explains gog of magog.
i caught something not previously talked about, that i can recall.. gog of magog is thought to be a coalition of nations that attach god's people during the great tribulation.
this is from ezekiel 38 & 39.. gog and magog in revelation 20 represents those with the same attitude as gog of magog.. thus, the new teaching (maybe not new, but i'll have to research this) is that gog in ezekiel is not the same as gog in revelation 20. two different gogs, happening about a thousand years apart.. .
-
-
-
96
This weeks #2 & #3 talk on homosexuality
by granada35 inafter a one year sucessful fade and no longer associated with any congreation, i was visiting my sister this week (who goes to the meeting to please her husband for now; i am slowly planting seeds though) and they decided to year this weeks midweek meeting via the telephone.
since i was a guest in her house, i sat with them in the living room to hear the meeting.
to my surprise (especially growing up as a gay jw with still alot of anger in my heart over how i was treated), the talks 2 and 3 where on, of course, homosexualiy.
-
-
Island Man
fulltimestudent: (which is why I was arguing above against someone else's concept of disgust at two men having sex)
fulltimestudent, do you think it's bad/wrong that I am repulsed by the thought of having sex with another man? Do you think it's bad/wrong that I'm repulsed by the idea of eating dog, cockroaches or some other bizzare food? Do you think it's impossible for me to respect people who choose to eat bizzare foods or engage in homosexual activity simply because I am repulsed by those practices? Do you think tolerance of others' lifestyles should mean having to give up your own dislikes?
-
43
From A Bublical Point Of View Did You Ever Think The Trinity Doctrine Made Sense?
by minimus ini see no logic in it.
i see what appears to be some scriptural contradictions but i see no merit in a trinitarian view of god.. .
.
-
-
Island Man
The Trinity doctrine came about in part because the NT does not mesh with the OT. Just contrast Isaiah 44:24 with Colossians 1:15-17 and You'll see what I mean. Another example Jehovah says there is no one like him. (Isaiah 46:9; Psalm 89:6) But 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Hebrews 1:3 refer to Jesus as being God's image and the exact representation of God's very being. So the NT contradicts the OT's point about God's unparalleled uniqueness.
-
32
Scared of Armageddon?
by naja inin the light of the following promises made by jehovah, how can there be an armageddon?.
genesis 8:21: ... so jehovah said in his heart: never again will i cursethe groundon mans account, for the inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up;and never again will i strike down every living thing as i have done.. genesis 9:15, 16: and i will certainly remember my covenant that i made between me and you and every living creature of every kind;and never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all flesh.and the rainbow will occur in the cloud, and i will certainly see it and remember the everlasting covenant between god and every living creature of every kindon the earth.. does it make sense to say "i will never kill you by a flood, next time i will use fire?
just asking.. .
-
-
Island Man
" Does it make sense to say "I will never kill you by a flood, next time I will use fire? Just asking."
Ummm . . . actually, that's kind of what Peter said. LOL.
"For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men." - 2 Peter 3:5-7, NWT
It just goes to show that the bible is an inconsistent book and its inconsistency is especially seen when comparing the OT with the NT which leads me to conclude that the NT is an unorthodox addition to the bible and christianity is actually a heretical offshoot from Judaeism. Here's an example that highlights how the NT contradicts the OT proving that the NT is not really part of the bible cannon but a later clumsy add-on:
"This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?" - Isaiah 44:24
Contrast this with Colossians 1:15-17:
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,"
There is a clear contradiction here. In the OT Jehovah says that he created the earth and stretched out the heavens by himself. In Colossians it says all this was done through - and hence, with - Jesus. So which was it - Jehovah alone? Or Jehovah with Jesus? Christianity does not mesh seemlessly with the OT and I suppose this is partly responsible for the development of the trinity doctrine to smooth over the inconsistencies produced by texts like the last two I highlight above.
Then there is the problem of the messianic prophecies, many of which, if one is truly honest and objective, don't read like prophecies at all but were clearly twisted by NT writers to make them seem like prophecies. Jesus failed to fulfill all the important and explicit Messianic prophecies in the OT so the NT writers resorted to twisting obscure OT texts that weren't written as Messianic prophecies to make them seem like they were, and portray Jesus as fulfilling them. And the major, explicit Messianic prophecies in the OT, are conveniently deffered to a future fulfillment in a "second coming". How convenient.
-
149
Evolution and spirits
by Chris Tann inas of now iam making an unbiased examination of evolution.
however one thing keeps me hanging on to the belief of a supreme spirit being; the existence of spirits.
i have heard countless accounts of people who have experienced frightening encounters with evil forces.
-
-
-
25
Listen to the Pilot Episode of JW Podcast
by God_Delusion inhi guys,.
check out our first ever podcast here - http://www.jwpodcast.org/2014/10/19/s01e00-macclesfield-forest, or download this episode (right click and save).
it's finally here, our first ever jehovah's witness podcast!
-
-
Island Man
The intro and conclusion sounds just like a program on BBC radio! LOL.
-
96
This weeks #2 & #3 talk on homosexuality
by granada35 inafter a one year sucessful fade and no longer associated with any congreation, i was visiting my sister this week (who goes to the meeting to please her husband for now; i am slowly planting seeds though) and they decided to year this weeks midweek meeting via the telephone.
since i was a guest in her house, i sat with them in the living room to hear the meeting.
to my surprise (especially growing up as a gay jw with still alot of anger in my heart over how i was treated), the talks 2 and 3 where on, of course, homosexualiy.
-
-
Island Man
The video linked above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XZRNL9ZnyM&list=PLAFA0B8FB23E26E4F&index=40
-
5
Has the Governing Body always been consistent in its published views of Homosexuality?
by Terry injehovahs witnesses-proclaimers of gods kingdom:.
pages 174-175.
"but among the witnesses, there was never any question as to how homosexuality would be viewed.".
-
-
Island Man
C. A mere technicality.
Their view on homosexuality didn't really change (based on the info/quotes posted in the OP). What did change was stance on whether or not it was a scriptural ground for divorce. They have always regarded homosexuality as a serious sin.
-
96
This weeks #2 & #3 talk on homosexuality
by granada35 inafter a one year sucessful fade and no longer associated with any congreation, i was visiting my sister this week (who goes to the meeting to please her husband for now; i am slowly planting seeds though) and they decided to year this weeks midweek meeting via the telephone.
since i was a guest in her house, i sat with them in the living room to hear the meeting.
to my surprise (especially growing up as a gay jw with still alot of anger in my heart over how i was treated), the talks 2 and 3 where on, of course, homosexualiy.
-
-
Island Man
Fulltimestudent:
"Dear Island man,
Of course, you're right - so much of what we do is subjective, but we could make an effort to understand the viewpoints of other sexualities, couldn't we? Not all human societies have adopted you're attitude, which, surely, reinforces your comment on subjectivity. But, I want to make the point that understanding someone else's viewpoint does not mean that you have to adopt the practises that you've come to understand."
Fulltimestudent, I understand that homosexuals are as attracted to the same sex as I am attracted to the opposite sex. I don't have a problem understanding that. I also understand that homosexuals should not be judged or denied certain privileges or discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. Do I need to understand more than these things? If so, what else do I need to understand and why?
-
96
This weeks #2 & #3 talk on homosexuality
by granada35 inafter a one year sucessful fade and no longer associated with any congreation, i was visiting my sister this week (who goes to the meeting to please her husband for now; i am slowly planting seeds though) and they decided to year this weeks midweek meeting via the telephone.
since i was a guest in her house, i sat with them in the living room to hear the meeting.
to my surprise (especially growing up as a gay jw with still alot of anger in my heart over how i was treated), the talks 2 and 3 where on, of course, homosexualiy.
-
-
Island Man
fulltimestudent, yes heterosexuals do engage in similar acts to homosexuals, but it's not just about the acts its about the lack of sexual desire and sexual attraction. Without sexual desire and sexual attraction, sex is actually a disgusting act whether homosexual or heterosexual. That is why young children who haven't reached puberty think of it as being "gross". So I find two men having sex to be repulsive because I can't empathize with it sexually since I don't have sexual desire toward men, and sex without sexual desire is just gross. But on the other hand, I'm not repulsed by Lesbian sex because I can empathize since I'm sexually attracted to women.
You're right from a logical and rational standpoint. But my reaon for being repulsed by the thought of having sex with another man, is not logical and rational. It is purely subjective, based on my own sexual preference. It is because I recognize this that I don't condemn homosexuals or think they should be thought less of or denied certian privileges. We all have subjective likes and dislikes not founded in rationality and must be careful not to use such subjective viewpoints as a basis for condemning others or discriminating against them.