It seems rather obvious the "original" Christian message was the salvific value of Christ's death, not eradicating pollution or petting panda bears.
B.
the wts and dubs like to brag that, unlike all other religions, they are the only people preaching the truth about "this good news of the kingdom" on earth.
they claim that their most important purpose in life and as dubs is to preach that good news.. .
they use their favorite verses in matthew 24:14 and revelation 21:3,4 to describe what that "good news of the kingdom" means.
It seems rather obvious the "original" Christian message was the salvific value of Christ's death, not eradicating pollution or petting panda bears.
B.
i have often engaged in debate on this forum in which i have taken the position that the only logical way of interpreting the bible -- and in being a genuine christian -- is to view it as being verbally inspired and binding in all it's details upon all christians down through the centuries.
this is, generally speaking, the way that fundamentalists and jehovahs witnesses view the scriptures; the bible "says what it means, and means what it says" case closed, no if's and's or but's!
i do not believe this and consider myself to be an agnostic, a point which i do not find necessary to elaborate on here.
ThiChi,
I feel obligated to tell you that I, for one, am growing increasingly weary of your myopic viewpoint and dogmatism which borders on outright bigotry. I have written an essay for a history course (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/68527/1.ashx) which clearly showed the US is not a "Christian nation" in any dogmatic sense (although we were influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition...much as we were Greco-Roman Law and Enlightenment philosophy). Really, if you wish to spout your fundamentalist chest-thumping, please do it on a different thread.
I'd like to keep on topic here...
Bradley
has anyone ever had opportunity to study the writings and ideas of christian theologian john hick?
i've been reading one of his books entitled "god has many names" which is a radical and thought-provoking work advocating the idea that all of the world's great religions (christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism, buddhism) are in some way "inspired" by god and lead to him/her/it (hick refers to this entity as the "eternal one").
hick was raised in a non-religious enviornment, was initially inclined towards theosophy but later became a conservative christian in the presbyterian church.
Has anyone ever had opportunity to study the writings and ideas of Christian theologian John Hick? I've been reading one of his books entitled "God Has Many Names" which is a radical and thought-provoking work advocating the idea that all of the world's great religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) are in some way "inspired" by God and lead to Him/Her/It (Hick refers to this entity as the "Eternal One").
Hick was raised in a non-religious enviornment, was initially inclined towards Theosophy but later became a conservative Christian in the Presbyterian Church. Graduallly he became more and more disturbed with a literal and dogmatic view or religion and came to the conclusion that all religions are true if viewed in their cultural context. He borrows a lot of ideas from Karl Jaspers who advocated the idea of an "axiel period" of mankind running from about the 9th to the 3rd century BCE in which all the major religions either were formed, became revolutionized into their current form, or provided the bedrock for later religious movements (namely, Christianity and Islam).
God, as it were, is like our solar system's sun with all the major religions moving around Him/Her/It like planets. Hick's theology is a sort of "Copernican Revolution" if you will with God, and not any single religious tradition, being at the center.
I'm not saying I believe any of this, but it is quite compelling.
Bradley
i have often engaged in debate on this forum in which i have taken the position that the only logical way of interpreting the bible -- and in being a genuine christian -- is to view it as being verbally inspired and binding in all it's details upon all christians down through the centuries.
this is, generally speaking, the way that fundamentalists and jehovahs witnesses view the scriptures; the bible "says what it means, and means what it says" case closed, no if's and's or but's!
i do not believe this and consider myself to be an agnostic, a point which i do not find necessary to elaborate on here.
Hello,
I have often engaged in debate on this forum in which I have taken the position that the only logical way of interpreting the Bible -- and in being a genuine Christian -- is to view it as being verbally inspired and binding in all it's details upon all Christians down through the centuries. This is, generally speaking, the way that fundamentalists and Jehovahs Witnesses view the scriptures; the Bible "says what it means, and means what it says" case closed, no if's and's or but's! I do not believe this and consider myself to be an agnostic, a point which I do not find necessary to elaborate on here.
But there are those who do not view the Bible this way. They view the Bible as being the Word of God yet one in which the cultural context of the Jews and early Christians has to be taken into account. For example, homosexuality is condemned quite clearly in the Bible in both the OT and Pauls writings, yet some Christians (and evidently liberal Jews) believe that God allows homosexuality (in a loving context) and that we cannot expect the Bible writers to escape their cultural prejudices and historical time period. From a certain point of view this makes perfect sense yet it does raise some problematic questions, such as:
1) Why couldn't (or wouldn't) Almighty God have inspired the Bible writers to move beyond their societal prejudices in the first place? WHY NOT just "tell them like it is" so to speak?
2) If God would not choose to do so, why not have some sort of progressive revelation which would CLEARLY and DISTINCTLY show His viewpoint when the time was right for society to deal with it?
3) If one takes the viewpoint that God HAS done so, in the sense of the Holy Spirit guiding believers consciences, what is one to make of the discrepencies in viewpoint among members of the Church today? And what CRITERION does one have to figure out what in the Bible is "cultural noise" and what is more "everlasting"?
Thank you.
Bradley
swimming trunks.. suntan oil.. cds for jammin in my room.
"go out" outfit.
martini glasses.. cellphone.. bible.
The umbrella reference was a code word for prophylactic.
Just kidding!
B
.
the witnesses have infiltrated!
anyway, love ya all!.
Actually, time is relative, not constant.
hehe...
Congrats on standing up to your dad. My suggesstion is to print out a few good articles on errors in the JW system, memorize some of the finer points and then you will be able to back up what you say with more than "I don't believe it." If you must, challenge the JWs to "look at the facts" by reading the article. When they refuse tell them they are operating from a position of ignorance and that it would then be impossible to debate the subject.
Bradley
it was the written review and i knew all the answers (what person with half a brain didn't -- or couldn't "figure it out" at his/her seat?).
but, i was also the literature servant and had to get that month's request done before the meeting was over.
so, right after song and prayer i went into the elders room and compiled the request (there were always brothers doing some work in there.
cannes, france (reuters) - u.s. director michael moore's ``fahrenheit 9/11'' won the top award at the cannes film festival saturday.. thanking the jury headed by cult director quentin tarantino, moore said: ``you will ensure that the american people will see this movie.
'' moore's win capped a politically charged festival, with documentaries and films reflecting troubled times and french show-business workers staging demonstrations and sit-ins to protest against cuts in their welfare benefits..
nice!
I prophesy this will be a very controversial thread.
several posters have started threads recently about the difficulty of moving on from the witnesses; the way the old emotions, and the old struggles, keep coming back.
i've been feeling that way myself recently, and i just wanted to share something i read this afternoon.
it's from a path with heart, by jack kornfield:there are stories about how the buddha practiced when he was assailed by doubts and temptations.
Very true, Euphemism and a great story. There is a lot that is not all right with me at the moment, and I feel that I am behind other members of my own age group in some ways, but I still feel a very satisfying sense of accomplishment at having left the JWs. I asked one of my proffessors one time (sociology) how easy it is for someone to leave the religion of their upbringing. He said, "almost impossible."
Well, we have done the "almost impossible." Here me roar.
Bradley
.
the ultimate test of our existence: termination.. i don't fear death...no reservations, no nightmares.. craig
Haha...I wish I had MORE of it!
B.