yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Bohm,
First, let me say, that in the Gospels it was only with Lazarus that Jesus, knowing before hand what was happening, allowed the natural course of disease and death to continue with later the resurrection of Lazarus that followed.
But as I said, I was handing you a good answer, one that you could find fault with. A Christian answer. It is what it is.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Welcome Viviane!
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Bohm,
Okay now we are getting somewhere :-).
Suppose I claimed I was the most moral person on earth, but I at the same time left the person to die in the forrest.
If I believed your claim that you were the most moral person on earth then I would say you must have had a good reason for letting that man die in the forest. But now if I did not believe your claim to be the most moral man on earth I would likely think you left the man to die for reasons which may not be all that good or noble.
Would me leaving the person to die in the forrest lead you to conclude I was (with very high probability) not the most moral person on earth? (ie. you would be far more sceptical of that claim than you might be of other reasons?)
I think you may like this answer: It all depends on how much I trust that you are who you claim to be. For instance, I know my daughter, I trust her. If she should find herself some day in a situation where she allowed someone to die rather than call for help I would believe she must have had good reason. But if I did not trust my neighbor, believing him to be a no good fellow, I would probably feel differently if he allowed someone to die without calling for help.
I trust in God. I know Jesus from what his disciples wrote about him. So my view would be quite different from someone who did not trust in God or his Son.
So there I've handed you a "flawed" Christian defense to do with as you will.
Pelican
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Bohm,
"I only claim I cannot see valid reasons for not calling for help. Can you? If not, we agree."
Yes, I would agree.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Bohm,
I said I would help someone in need.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Bohm,
I understand what you are saying and of course I would help someone in need. But let's look at it another way.
Aren't there times when men or women in authority must make hard choices? Choosing between saving a mother caught in a burning car or her child? Or the Fire Chief who must call his men out of a burning building knowing full well there are still people trapped in there. Hard choices happen every day in war as well. For the most part, these choices are recognized as necessary though much heartache has resulted. It is my belief that God is being placed in the same position. Choosing to allow a terrible circumstance in order to bring about a better world is very hard to understand but in the end we will know and understand. That is my firm belief.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
I’m certain that in Jesus’ day there were many natural disasters occurring in many parts of the earth. Hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, erupting volcanoes went on as usual. His message and life’s work was not about preventing these natural events taking place in his day.
It is the same with God. What has caused more needless deaths? Natural disasters or wars, famines and disease caused by human greed? But we want God to fix all our hurts for us even those we cause ourselves? Poor us…we war and pollute and destroy the earth but God allows the winds and the earth to have its way with us, what a travesty that is!
to active jws: your january 4, 2014 daily text contains an error.
saturday, january 4. .
men spoke from god as they were borne along by holy spirit.2 pet.
Thanks Apognophos,
Interesting thought. I'll look into that.
Pelican
to active jws: your january 4, 2014 daily text contains an error.
saturday, january 4. .
men spoke from god as they were borne along by holy spirit.2 pet.
To Active JWs: Your January 4, 2014 Daily Text Contains an Error
Saturday, January 4
Men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.—2 Pet. 1:21.D
Over a period of 1,610 years—spanning from 1513 B.C.E. to 98 C.E.—some 40 different men wrote the Bible. The Greek expression rendered “borne along” has the sense “to bear or carry from one place to another,” and it “can be variously rendered: be moved, be driven, let oneself be moved.” Acts 27:15 uses it in describing a boat that was seized and moved, or driven along a certain course, by the wind. Bible prophets and writers were “borne along by holy spirit” in that God communicated with, motivated, and guided them by means of his active force. That being the case, they wrote, not their own ideas, but God’s thoughts. Sometimes the inspired prophets and writers did not even know the meaning of what they foretold or were writing. (Dan. 12:8, 9) Yes, “all Scripture is inspired of God” and is free of human opinions.—2 Tim. 3:16. w12 6/15 4:3 (underlining added)
Opinions?
Paul wrote opinions:
(1 Corinthians 7:25) 25 Now concerning virgins I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who had mercy shown him by the Lord to be faithful.
(2 Corinthians 8:10) 10 And in this I render an opinion: for this matter is of benefit to YOU, seeing that already a year ago YOU initiated not only the doing but also the wanting [to do];
(1 Corinthians 7:12) 12 But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him not leave her;
But there is a much more important point to be made here and that is that even Paul felt it good and necessary to differentiate between what the Lord had directly told him and what was his opinion. Yet, the Governing Body fails time and again to do similarly. When an article is written in the Watchtower and supporting scriptures are cited there is no demarcation between what the inspired scripture is teaching and what the Governing Body is recommending, what is in actuality their opinion. They do not in the Watchtower say “In our opinion” or “It appears to us” or “In our view”. No, they write every article as if it is written in stone, the same stone Moses carried down the mountain. But then when a change is necessitated, when a teaching they held to is proven wrong because it was actually an “opinion”, an unstated opinion, they back track. Then that “stone” becomes not a stone but a chalk board and rewrites upon rewrites are drawn upon it. The Governing Body requires JWs to view what is written in the Watchtower, even their erroneous opinions, on the same level as the Bible until they are told otherwise. They raise themselves too high, too grand, too loudly.
Humility gives birth to honesty and honesty to respect.
Respect for the Governing Body is declining, in some JW circles declining rapidly. The GB’s lack of humility and honesty is the root cause of this lack of respect.
The Governing Body does well to follow Paul’s example and admit when a statement is an opinion and not based directly on scripture.
to active jws: your january 3, 2014 daily text contains an error.
friday, january 3. .
under what circumstances might a christian wife actually depart?
Thanks Billy.
For JW lurkers who may be reluctant to click a link here please open your Watchtower Library CD on your computer and read the following for yourselves. Notice that in just one year from January to December the advice for a married JW whose spouse had sexual relations with someone of the same sex took a 180 degree turn. The Governing Body takes too much upon itself to decide these delicate matters for others. Think of the sister or brother who could not get free to scripturally divorce in January and suffered whatever consequences in their life that came from that to then read in December that their suffering and their trust in the Organization's scriptural instruction was for nothing. It was wrong!
January 1972 Questions From Readers
● Do homosexual acts on the part of a married person constitute a Scriptural ground for divorce, freeing the innocent mate to remarry?—U.S.A.
*** w72 1/1 p. 32 Questions From Readers ***
"While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual “one flesh” with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate." (underlining mine)
December 1972 Questions From Readers (note same year as above)
● Why, according to Matthew’s accounts, did Jesus use two different words—“fornication” and “adultery”—in discussing the proper grounds for divorce? Is not the only ground for Scriptural divorce “adultery,” as the term is generally understood?—U.S.A.
*** w72 12/15 pp. 767-768 Questions From Readers ***
"What, then, is the significance of the Bible’s use of these terms and what does it reveal as to the valid Biblical grounds for divorce? It shows that any married person who goes outside the marriage bond and engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural and perverted, is guilty of committing por·nei′a or “fornication” in the Bible sense."
*** w72 12/15 p. 768 Questions From Readers ***
"Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery.
This clearly marks a correction in the view expressed on previous occasions in the columns of this magazine, but faithful adherence to what the Scriptures actually say requires it. There is much more that can be considered on the matter and for that reason it will be discussed more completely in a coming issue of this magazine."
