Posts by starScream

13

A JW Belief I still hold on to

by ApagaLaLuz in

all this talk of wwiii has really got to me to thinking.

i still hold strong beliefs against world divisions.

the belief that the jws teach of a world-wide unity is one that still apeals to me very much.

starScream

I have seen that. You say that you still hold on to that belief?

35

Does God define "right and wrong" or is there an intrinsic 'good' ?

by Simon in

i don't personally believe in a 'god' but i wonder for those who do .... is there an intrinsic "right and wrong" or moral code that would exist whether or not there was a god?.

to put it another way, is what we believe is "right or wrong" based on whatever god decides is right or wrong (ie.

he set's the standard) or is it an intrinisc thing that he also must adhere to in order to be thought of as 'good'.. if god has to adhere and go along with some intrinsic value system then does this effect any claims to be omnipotent and always good?

starScream

In such a scenario, freewill would not be freewill, and Satan is very probably a freedom fighter, slandered by the propoganda of a totalitarian despot.

God did not rise to power. God is God. Only a proud fool thinks he knows better than the almighty. The one that slanders the only one who CAN know what is right is a criminal. Robbing a bank and killing the tellers is not the actions of a freedom fighter and it is not totallitarian despotism that enforces that law. Satan is an Anarchist who took for granted the gift that was his. To him love was weakness and since thats all he knew from God he grew bold.

57

Verses that bothered you as a JW

by JH in

we find god's name "jehovah" so many times in the old testament, but not at all in the new testament.

jesus is called a "mighty god" in the bible.

jesus is also called "father".

starScream

could you please state the versus, Francois. That is a more esoteric subject.

13

A JW Belief I still hold on to

by ApagaLaLuz in

all this talk of wwiii has really got to me to thinking.

i still hold strong beliefs against world divisions.

the belief that the jws teach of a world-wide unity is one that still apeals to me very much.

starScream

I too have mixed feelings about saluting flags, singing national anthems, etc.

I just don't think it is appropriate in Church

29

Name just ONE...

by Brummie in

name just one doctrine the society has been consistent with?

i can only think of their teaching of hell/sheol/soul...bet y'all cant think of another one .

eg....blood...never been consistent, couldnt have a single drop, can now have particles.... 1914 return of christ...began as 1874 ...was the beginning of the generation that would see the end yada.

starScream

The Watchtower is the only oraganization that pleases God or can understand the bible.

8

Mixed households and worldly Witnesses

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

freeminds organization.

randy watters.

long time no talk to.

starScream

Dogpatch,

I hate your wife. Lying under oath to to get what you want by punishing someone else is one of the highest crimes possible. It is playing God, but also and evil God. It is playing Satan. JWs love to play Satan and the irony is they think they are RIGHT for doing it.

57

Verses that bothered you as a JW

by JH in

we find god's name "jehovah" so many times in the old testament, but not at all in the new testament.

jesus is called a "mighty god" in the bible.

jesus is also called "father".

starScream

Your second point is another attempt at adding to the Bible to make it more palatible and logical.

There was nothing illogical in that passage. Someone decided that Solomon made a potentially dangerous decision based on his own SPECULATION. I merely made the point that Solomon probably had more information than he realizes. You apparently want the bible to anticapte every attack concievable and pre-emptively defend itself or you are unsatisfied. The problem is that there are at least 800 billion things you can say to question something in the bible. If the bible tried to pre-empt everyone it would defeat the purpose of even having the bible because it would take 8000 years to read it.

This question that has been raised is very easy to address. It was based on UNFOUNDED speculation. So I answered with a perfectly plausible and LIKELYscenario that would satisfy the question.

So you think that two women just burst in on the King in his throne room and started bickering? You don't think that there was some security check points they had to get past first?

I will assume you agree that is logical. Therefore it is quite reasonable to also assume that before they were allowed to pass to see the King they would have to have a reason. So is it so hard to imagine that an escort told Solomon that their are two women who are arguing over a child, and asked him if he would like to see them? If I were King I would appreciate it if someone announced unexpected visitors before I had to see them. I mean it is just common courteousy and perfectly normal for any judicial proceedings.

My point was perfectly valid, but if you don't like the bible and think it is a myth, that's fine.

35

Does God define "right and wrong" or is there an intrinsic 'good' ?

by Simon in

i don't personally believe in a 'god' but i wonder for those who do .... is there an intrinsic "right and wrong" or moral code that would exist whether or not there was a god?.

to put it another way, is what we believe is "right or wrong" based on whatever god decides is right or wrong (ie.

he set's the standard) or is it an intrinisc thing that he also must adhere to in order to be thought of as 'good'.. if god has to adhere and go along with some intrinsic value system then does this effect any claims to be omnipotent and always good?

starScream

Therefore he cannot also make up rules that should be followed.

sorry, cannot should be can

35

Does God define "right and wrong" or is there an intrinsic 'good' ?

by Simon in

i don't personally believe in a 'god' but i wonder for those who do .... is there an intrinsic "right and wrong" or moral code that would exist whether or not there was a god?.

to put it another way, is what we believe is "right or wrong" based on whatever god decides is right or wrong (ie.

he set's the standard) or is it an intrinisc thing that he also must adhere to in order to be thought of as 'good'.. if god has to adhere and go along with some intrinsic value system then does this effect any claims to be omnipotent and always good?

starScream

God has a Holy nature. God cannot violate his own nature. Telling a lie violates his nature. Therefore God cannot lie. This is one example of an intrinsic moral rule.

It seems that there are some rules God must follow simply because his very nature precludes it and not because he simply decided it was so, although I'm sure he would conciously agree.

Since God is God he is rightly in the position to give orders and require obedience. Therefore he cannot also make up rules that should be followed. If someone chooses to not follow a rule it would violate God's sense of justice since he is rightly in the position of authority and only pride would allow someone to think that they could possibly know better than God.

I don't think I have proven it very thoroughly in this little space but it seems that almost everything that is considered good ultimately is beyond the active control of God and depends on the very senses of God.

If we lose a loved one we are hurt. This is not because we want to be hurt. It is just fundamental to our nature that we will be hurt. This is how I think of what morality ultimately comes down to with God.

57

Verses that bothered you as a JW

by JH in

we find god's name "jehovah" so many times in the old testament, but not at all in the new testament.

jesus is called a "mighty god" in the bible.

jesus is also called "father".

starScream

Regarding Solomon's "wisdom" in directing the baby to be chopped in half: how did he know that one of the women would actually step in and just let the wrong mother have the child? What if both women were just plain sicko's who would just let the baby die? Did he think of that possibility?

If they didn't care about the baby they would not have come before THE KING OF ISRAEL to argue over it. I have to address one persons(a) who says that it is so simple of a problem to solve with the method he chose that it isn't even wisdom and then another guy(b) thinks that Solomon was dumb because he was too bold in his solution.

a) The problem went unresolved, and they were brought before the King. The King acts like he doesn't care and this has gone on too long, kill the damn kid. Problem solved justice served. The simplicity is what makes it brilliant.

b) Solomon would have been prepared for the case before they came in and told his guards to not actually killed the kid even though he said to do it. The shock alone would cause the real mother to cry out. When you are King of Israel then go ahead and call the other ones stupid.