I basically enjoyed being involved in this section for a short while. It wasn't my intention to stay long, as I mainly wanted to add a few comments, and try to answer a few questions. Since most of the responses have been in the mold of insincere and inflammatory fruitless debate by ruffled evolutionists, some of you may be pleased to know that I'll be now just spending a bit of time in the more 'sensible' sections.
The biggest problem is that the people who post in this section are stubbornly opinionated, and only seem bent on contradicting anything the other "side" says. They feel threatened and hurt, and feel they must retaliate, and be seen to do so, in an immature and childlike manner, at the same time trying to discredit the other person, and 'elevate' themselves by putting others down. So I can't be wasting time in this manner.
What's worse is that neither the evolutionists, who know nothing of life, except for having a confused basic understanding of biology; or the creationists, have any idea of the true facts of life, or nature of the universe. Basically, I'm astonished at the total lack of understanding on both sides, from otherwise intelligent people. No offense intended to sincere, open-minded ones. The same will no doubt be directed to me, but when one finds the truth, he/she knows it, and there's no need to look elsewhere. One cannot find it however, unless God leads them to it by sincere request.
Knowing the truth enables true freedom and happiness, with a sure hope for the future. Evolution offers no hope, nor knowledge or guidance. It is a blind dead end alley. It is no different than idolatry, condemned in God's Word. 'The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; All his ideas are: “There is no God."' -Ps 10:4 However, these are the ways of death.
God's Word also tells us why we are here, where we are going, and what our purpose in life is. It frees us from fears, superstition, empty philosophy, and religious dogma. We don't fear death, as God can and will bring us back again, and is the only one able to, so best to get to know and rely upon him.
If anyone is interested in further information; if you want help regarding personal or family problems, or just want to find some more on evolution, feel free to visit our official Web site anytime at www.watchtower.org or email me.
I know a lot of you don't post, but you honest-hearted ones seeking to find the truth, with sincere questions or points for discussion, are those I care most about. And there's a wealth of information to be found there. All the research has already been done, and is presented along with secular references. Also the site contains the Bible online. There's no ads, spyware, cookies or other tracking devices; no money solicited or information required.
Arthur
I read your post PhilP and it is the most hypocritical post I have ever read.
Now I could post and ramble ad nauseum about the endless flaws in your religion, or any religion for that matter. But i have not the time nor the patience. The biggest dissapointed on your post was when you said, "Knowing the truth enables true freedom and happiness, with a sure hope for the future. Evolution offers no hope, nor knowledge or guidance. It is a blind dead end alley."
If you were trully happy and free, would you be searching around on forums to post arguments? And you say evolution offers no hope, knowledge or guidence. I don't even know where to begin for the point of knowledge. Everyday I acquire more knowledge than your religion offers. I also have great hopes for the future and I find guidence along a basic moral code by which everyone should follow. I don't need a "god" to tell me what is wrong and what is right.
I suggest: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...d+dawkins&hl=en
I wish to not argue religion, when I do, I find myself in circles because the other person will always answer, "Because god says so" or "That's how god made it". Somewhere along those lines
Now I could post and ramble ad nauseum about the endless flaws in your religion, or any religion for that matter. But i have not the time nor the patience. The biggest dissapointed on your post was when you said, "Knowing the truth enables true freedom and happiness, with a sure hope for the future. Evolution offers no hope, nor knowledge or guidance. It is a blind dead end alley."
If you were trully happy and free, would you be searching around on forums to post arguments? And you say evolution offers no hope, knowledge or guidence. I don't even know where to begin for the point of knowledge. Everyday I acquire more knowledge than your religion offers. I also have great hopes for the future and I find guidence along a basic moral code by which everyone should follow. I don't need a "god" to tell me what is wrong and what is right.
I suggest: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...d+dawkins&hl=en
I wish to not argue religion, when I do, I find myself in circles because the other person will always answer, "Because god says so" or "That's how god made it". Somewhere along those lines
QUOTE (PhilP+Oct 7 2006, 10:39 AM)
What's worse is that neither the evolutionists, who know nothing of life, except for having a confused basic understanding of biology
An extremely large generalisation and a very poor one at that.
An extremely large generalisation and a very poor one at that.
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Wooo, boy! Thanks for that post card from Ignorance-istan. I hope you are impotent in all facets of life, because I'd hate to see your delusions spread and drag us back to the dark ages.
Yeah yeah, I know, when Jesus comes charging back on his T-Rex steed, I'm going to get decapitated with his +5 *** sword of "truth."
Wooo, boy! Thanks for that post card from Ignorance-istan. I hope you are impotent in all facets of life, because I'd hate to see your delusions spread and drag us back to the dark ages.
Yeah yeah, I know, when Jesus comes charging back on his T-Rex steed, I'm going to get decapitated with his +5 *** sword of "truth."
QUOTE (Pan+Oct 7 2006, 10:02 PM)
... drag us back to the dark ages.
I think we're already there.
- Dave
I think we're already there.
- Dave
No need for an apology, I was never offended!
But I know lots about life. Ask me a question about it.
But I know lots about life. Ask me a question about it.
QUOTE (PhilP+Oct 7 2006, 04:39 AM)
I mainly wanted to add a few comments, and try to answer a few questions.
when one finds the truth, he/she knows it, and there's no need to look elsewhere.
Ok class, is this an example of:
A: Irony
B: Hypocrisy
C: Both
QUOTE
The biggest problem is that the people who post in this section are stubbornly opinionated
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The biggest problem is that the people who post in this section are stubbornly opinionated |
when one finds the truth, he/she knows it, and there's no need to look elsewhere.
Ok class, is this an example of:
A: Irony
B: Hypocrisy
C: Both
Thank-you all for your support, and confirming my statements. Your only concern is to hit back at what you perceive to be a threat to your cherished faith. If the best you can do after all these years of "refinement" to the evolution theory is to resort to what you denounce as the "creationist" philosophy; IE your theory is true because we exist, then you obviously have nothing. I looked into this section out of curiosity about what you types are saying these days, to see how the "debate" is progressing, and it seems it will never end until God brings an end to it, and all those determined to oppose him. Ah well, too bad for them.
My only real concern is for any of God's people still confused and tied up with these empty philosophies. Also for sincere people trying to combat evolution views with spiritual argument. These may include some who have viewed but do not post material. I set you on the right track, the right path, by providing you a link to spiritual understanding and enlightenment. I hope the trip will be successful for you.
You may or may not realize that evolution is just one of the many tools of Satan to blind people from the truth, by keeping them in darkness and ignorance. One of his original lies to Eve was that she could be like God and thus be independent, having no need for him. Even in Christendom these notions have been adopted through the development of false doctrine, such as the immortality of the soul, which implies that we go on living after death regardless of what we say or do, and thus it perpetuates his lie of independence and being like God.
The truth is that the eternal life spoken of in the Bible springs from the resurrection to life on Earth for the majority, whereas the heavenly hope mainly applied to the first Christian congregation. Some time too after the death of the Apostles, the great apostasy began to develop. Since then the "dark ages" occurred. In modern times, Jehovah's Witnesses have returned to the ways and beliefs of the early Christians, and thus we follow Jesus according to the Scriptures, and our whole lives are based on that. Thus we are not some cult or breakaway group, but we obey God's Word. When we look into it, we find little similarity to Christendom's teachings.
If we are involved with Christendom in some way, we need to heed the prophetic warning found at Rev 18:4 to get out of her, that is, Babylon the Great, the Great Harlot, or the world empire of false religion, of which Christendom is a major part. God is about to have it destroyed through human means because of all it's bloodguilt, and thus He implores "his people" to get out of it, that is, those sincere believers who would accept the truth after discerning it. But how will they hear without someone to preach? Thus I'm offering this little warning here in this ungodly place, having been here, not a normal avenue we use. But I just have a feeling there are a few good people still out there. I don't ask that you listen to me, or to any man, but Jesus is our leader, in charge of the true Christian congregation, and it is him that we follow, as obedient sheeplike ones. Though having free choice and will, we also make sure of the things we are taught, yet all of us, over 6 million worldwide, are united in love, and speak in agreement. Also there is no partiality, nor discernible national boundaries, and that is what would be expected in an organization having the truth and God's backing, is it not?
My only real concern is for any of God's people still confused and tied up with these empty philosophies. Also for sincere people trying to combat evolution views with spiritual argument. These may include some who have viewed but do not post material. I set you on the right track, the right path, by providing you a link to spiritual understanding and enlightenment. I hope the trip will be successful for you.
You may or may not realize that evolution is just one of the many tools of Satan to blind people from the truth, by keeping them in darkness and ignorance. One of his original lies to Eve was that she could be like God and thus be independent, having no need for him. Even in Christendom these notions have been adopted through the development of false doctrine, such as the immortality of the soul, which implies that we go on living after death regardless of what we say or do, and thus it perpetuates his lie of independence and being like God.
The truth is that the eternal life spoken of in the Bible springs from the resurrection to life on Earth for the majority, whereas the heavenly hope mainly applied to the first Christian congregation. Some time too after the death of the Apostles, the great apostasy began to develop. Since then the "dark ages" occurred. In modern times, Jehovah's Witnesses have returned to the ways and beliefs of the early Christians, and thus we follow Jesus according to the Scriptures, and our whole lives are based on that. Thus we are not some cult or breakaway group, but we obey God's Word. When we look into it, we find little similarity to Christendom's teachings.
If we are involved with Christendom in some way, we need to heed the prophetic warning found at Rev 18:4 to get out of her, that is, Babylon the Great, the Great Harlot, or the world empire of false religion, of which Christendom is a major part. God is about to have it destroyed through human means because of all it's bloodguilt, and thus He implores "his people" to get out of it, that is, those sincere believers who would accept the truth after discerning it. But how will they hear without someone to preach? Thus I'm offering this little warning here in this ungodly place, having been here, not a normal avenue we use. But I just have a feeling there are a few good people still out there. I don't ask that you listen to me, or to any man, but Jesus is our leader, in charge of the true Christian congregation, and it is him that we follow, as obedient sheeplike ones. Though having free choice and will, we also make sure of the things we are taught, yet all of us, over 6 million worldwide, are united in love, and speak in agreement. Also there is no partiality, nor discernible national boundaries, and that is what would be expected in an organization having the truth and God's backing, is it not?
Just to clarify a couple of things. Satan would like all to be destroyed, especially God's true servants, whom he hates, because he is about to be imprisoned, and later destroyed, and he is infuriated and envious beyond measure that mere humans will live eternally.
Also I have not read everything in this forum. That would hardly be advisable, nor possible perhaps, so when I make generalisations I don't mean that it applies in all cases, and I've seen intelligent points made by some arguing for Creation, yet I can see that they are in error also. I don't say that would always be so either.
One other thing. I could have come in and sucked up, but that would never help anything. I knew I would be in for scorn and ridicule no matter what, yet I unashamedly spoke the truth. Thus I feel privileged to be dishonored by opposers for the sake of Christ.
Also I have not read everything in this forum. That would hardly be advisable, nor possible perhaps, so when I make generalisations I don't mean that it applies in all cases, and I've seen intelligent points made by some arguing for Creation, yet I can see that they are in error also. I don't say that would always be so either.
One other thing. I could have come in and sucked up, but that would never help anything. I knew I would be in for scorn and ridicule no matter what, yet I unashamedly spoke the truth. Thus I feel privileged to be dishonored by opposers for the sake of Christ.
you know, i had misunderstood this forum and for that i apologize too... (i couldn't post my own topic for lack of time, sorry)
anyway, here's a break from all the criticism and lambasting, Phil.
i really admire your stand on this, i also really admire your ability to defend yourself, and i really, really admire your logic, (actually, the logic of most of the people here, that includes Dave Grossman, and PuckSR).
i know it's not much (i'm one of the guys you mentioned that gets hurt easy, by the way), but keep up the good work man, God Bless
anyway, here's a break from all the criticism and lambasting, Phil.
i really admire your stand on this, i also really admire your ability to defend yourself, and i really, really admire your logic, (actually, the logic of most of the people here, that includes Dave Grossman, and PuckSR).
i know it's not much (i'm one of the guys you mentioned that gets hurt easy, by the way), but keep up the good work man, God Bless
QUOTE (Pan+Oct 7 2006, 10:02 PM)
Wooo, boy! Thanks for that post card from Ignorance-istan. I hope you are impotent in all facets of life, because I'd hate to see your delusions spread and drag us back to the dark ages.
ok.... as a response to all the questions like this...... let me ask.
how are our "delusions" going to drag the world back to the dark ages?
Yeah yeah, I know, when Jesus comes charging back on his T-Rex steed, I'm going to get decapitated with his +5 *** sword of "truth."
i can say "nerd" with a sarcastic undertone, but there's a big chance you're going to say "n00b!" while aiming a silver arrow on my head with your +10 GM modified (insert uber name here) bow.
ok.... as a response to all the questions like this...... let me ask.
how are our "delusions" going to drag the world back to the dark ages?
QUOTE
Yeah yeah, I know, when Jesus comes charging back on his T-Rex steed, I'm going to get decapitated with his +5 *** sword of "truth."
i can say "nerd" with a sarcastic undertone, but there's a big chance you're going to say "n00b!" while aiming a silver arrow on my head with your +10 GM modified (insert uber name here) bow.
QUOTE (Philp+)
The truth is that the eternal life spoken of in the Bible springs from the resurrection to life on Earth for the majority, whereas the heavenly hope mainly applied to the first Christian congregation. Some time too after the death of the Apostles, the great apostasy began to develop. Since then the "dark ages" occurred. In modern times, Jehovah's Witnesses have returned to the ways and beliefs of the early Christians, and thus we follow Jesus according to the Scriptures, and our whole lives are based on that. Thus we are not some cult or breakaway group, but we obey God's Word. When we look into it, we find little similarity to Christendom's teachings.
Philp: There are several things in the quote above that are NOT "truth". Jehovah's Witnesses have greatly erred from many teachings in the Bible. Perhaps(definitely) you should spend some more time examining the truthfulness of your own beliefs before lambasting others here on this forum. Take care.
Philp: There are several things in the quote above that are NOT "truth". Jehovah's Witnesses have greatly erred from many teachings in the Bible. Perhaps(definitely) you should spend some more time examining the truthfulness of your own beliefs before lambasting others here on this forum. Take care.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
Just to clarify a couple of things. Satan would like all to be destroyed, especially God's true servants, whom he hates, because he is about to be imprisoned, and later destroyed, and he is infuriated and envious beyond measure that mere humans will live eternally.
How do you know? You talk like Satan is your uncle and God your father-in-law. You are either delusional or deliberately using fear tactics.
scare tactics 1
How do you know? You talk like Satan is your uncle and God your father-in-law. You are either delusional or deliberately using fear tactics.
scare tactics 1
QUOTE (PhilP+)
Since most of the responses have been in the mold of insincere and inflammatory fruitless debate by ruffled evolutionists, some of you may be pleased to know that I'll be now just spending a bit of time in the more 'sensible' sections.
You wont find too many gullible people on this forum. So find some really backward forum.
You wont find too many gullible people on this forum. So find some really backward forum.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
Knowing the truth enables true freedom and happiness
You mean "truth" like Walking on water? Virgin birth? Resurrection? Angel, devil, satan? Creationism?
No thanks.
You mean "truth" like Walking on water? Virgin birth? Resurrection? Angel, devil, satan? Creationism?
No thanks.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
Evolution offers no hope, nor knowledge or guidance. It is a blind dead end alley. It is no different than idolatry, condemned in God's Word. 'The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; All his ideas are: “There is no God."' -Ps 10:4 However, these are the ways of death.
Scare tactics 2
Scare tactics 2
QUOTE (PhilP+)
You may or may not realize that evolution is just one of the many tools of Satan to blind people from the truth, by keeping them in darkness and ignorance.
Evolution was not discovered till a few decades ago, so how does the Bible relate Satan to Evolution? or is it just you with your
Scare tactics 3.
Evolution was not discovered till a few decades ago, so how does the Bible relate Satan to Evolution? or is it just you with your
Scare tactics 3.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
If we are involved with Christendom in some way, we need to heed the prophetic warning found at Rev 18:4 to get out of her, that is, Babylon the Great, the Great Harlot, or the world empire of false religion, of which Christendom is a major part.
Scare tactics 4.
Scare tactics 4.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
I don't ask that you listen to me, or to any man, but Jesus is our leader, in charge of the true Christian
congregation, and it is him that we follow, as obedient sheeplike ones.
We can't see Jesus. So we would in effect be listening to you.
congregation, and it is him that we follow, as obedient sheeplike ones.
We can't see Jesus. So we would in effect be listening to you.
vkamath: Let me start by asking that you separate my following statements from anything that PhilP has already stated. Although PhilP and I would probably agree on a few things, if he is a standard Jehovah's Witness, then it is safe to assume that we have some MAJOR differences where Jesus Christ and Biblical Christianity are concerned. Anyway, on to the point of my post:
I don't say these things to scare people. As a people we are not scared. So long as we do our best to please God, which involves taking active steps to know and carry out his will, we don't need to fear the future. Our message primarily has taken a soft approach, however as the end draws very near, it will be taking on the tone of an urgent warning, just as in Noah's days. Any of those people could have been saved. All that was required was a simple act of obedience to save their lives, and that was to get aboard the ark with Noah and his family. Today God has an organization which He uses which may well be likened to that ark of salvation, and we must be aboard with a ticket. This ticket of validation corresponds to baptism.
Very, very dangerous. This is so close to a 'believe in my version of God, or die' approach. Collectively, this is suicidal talk...Exactly why it is being challenged by 'pro-lifers'.
"Thus many of these sort were dispossessed of their land when the Israelites were given the Promised Land." - Exactly what is happening in the mid-east now. No 'were' about it! (And it was/still is 'promised' to them by the British/American coalition after WW2 - Hence 'religion' shows its true political face, very publicly.)
That's a mis-spelling of 'noah', by the way... It should be Knower. (As opposed to 'believer'!)
Noah yourself, PhilP. Then you will see the sense in being less confrontational.
k.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
We can't see Jesus. So we would in effect be listening to you.
Your comment reminded me of the following portion of scripture in which "certain Greeks" asked to "see Jesus".
"And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there also shall my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour. Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorifed it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die. The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man? Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them."(John 12:20-36)
I know that was a rather lengthy portion of scripture, but I wanted you to see that this dialogue that began with a request to "see Jesus", ended with Jesus departing and hiding himself from the people he was conversing with. What about the Greeks' request that they "see Jesus"? Was it denied? Not at all. Jesus laid out the requirements for truly "seeing Him":
Fall into the ground and die.
This "death" was figurative, as in "losing your life to find it". There has been much said over the years about being "born again". Problem is that very little has been said about "losing your life to find it". There is no "new birth" without an "old death". Jesus went on to say:
"If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
(John 14:15-23)
I posted this NOT to "preach" per se, but merely to inform you of what Jesus Christ had to say in regards to "seeing Him". I met His conditions nearly 18 years ago and I've gotten(repeatedly) the promised results. Take care.
Your comment reminded me of the following portion of scripture in which "certain Greeks" asked to "see Jesus".
"And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there also shall my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour. Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorifed it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die. The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man? Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them."(John 12:20-36)
I know that was a rather lengthy portion of scripture, but I wanted you to see that this dialogue that began with a request to "see Jesus", ended with Jesus departing and hiding himself from the people he was conversing with. What about the Greeks' request that they "see Jesus"? Was it denied? Not at all. Jesus laid out the requirements for truly "seeing Him":
Fall into the ground and die.
This "death" was figurative, as in "losing your life to find it". There has been much said over the years about being "born again". Problem is that very little has been said about "losing your life to find it". There is no "new birth" without an "old death". Jesus went on to say:
"If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
(John 14:15-23)
I posted this NOT to "preach" per se, but merely to inform you of what Jesus Christ had to say in regards to "seeing Him". I met His conditions nearly 18 years ago and I've gotten(repeatedly) the promised results. Take care.
newguy,
I find the language of scripture a bit hard to understand. It seems we would have to believe and meet some conditions to see Jesus.
You are free to hold this belief. Also, it is good that it has given you the desired results. But if you say you actually saw Jesus in person, I would find that hard to believe.
As for me, I try to be a rational person and I cannot accept any conditions or hold any beliefs without concrete evidence of their source.
Faith is the basis of Religion. We should leave it at that. But PhilP wants to pass off his beliefs as science and selectively examine the evidence for Evolution while deliberately ignoring other irrational concepts of Religion.
To be rational we should base our beliefs on evidence rather than searching for evidence that matches our beliefs.
As you know, I have posted many times about people who use brain wash, scare tactics, emotional black mail to scare the gullible into submission. Wherever I see such an attempt, I try to expose them. PhilP, did use some of these techniques moderately and I had to respond.
I find the language of scripture a bit hard to understand. It seems we would have to believe and meet some conditions to see Jesus.
You are free to hold this belief. Also, it is good that it has given you the desired results. But if you say you actually saw Jesus in person, I would find that hard to believe.
As for me, I try to be a rational person and I cannot accept any conditions or hold any beliefs without concrete evidence of their source.
Faith is the basis of Religion. We should leave it at that. But PhilP wants to pass off his beliefs as science and selectively examine the evidence for Evolution while deliberately ignoring other irrational concepts of Religion.
To be rational we should base our beliefs on evidence rather than searching for evidence that matches our beliefs.
As you know, I have posted many times about people who use brain wash, scare tactics, emotional black mail to scare the gullible into submission. Wherever I see such an attempt, I try to expose them. PhilP, did use some of these techniques moderately and I had to respond.
Philp,
In all sincerity, I try to find a positive aspect to what most people post but, in crass Australian parlance, you would be described as an absolute 'wanker' - a term of derision meant to convey a sense of self importance and arrogance seen by others as what really is buffoonery.
Your postings made little sense; the only one with any coherency was stolen without attribution. Coming to a science web site and posting superstitious claptrap elicited a response you didn't expect? Generally, the people here are interested in reality (OK jduke and a few other god squadders aside), not some supposed holy book.
I have read bits of the bible and I don't like the slavery, beatings, rape, incest, murders, genocide, blind wrath of the principal protaganist and the wimpering servitude.
It is bizarre that some peole actually believe this nonsense.
Physfan
In all sincerity, I try to find a positive aspect to what most people post but, in crass Australian parlance, you would be described as an absolute 'wanker' - a term of derision meant to convey a sense of self importance and arrogance seen by others as what really is buffoonery.
Your postings made little sense; the only one with any coherency was stolen without attribution. Coming to a science web site and posting superstitious claptrap elicited a response you didn't expect? Generally, the people here are interested in reality (OK jduke and a few other god squadders aside), not some supposed holy book.
I have read bits of the bible and I don't like the slavery, beatings, rape, incest, murders, genocide, blind wrath of the principal protaganist and the wimpering servitude.
It is bizarre that some peole actually believe this nonsense.
Physfan
Well, the quotes aren't working currently for me. I sometimes look in whilst on the site, though I wasn't planning to continue with this thread. I could have a lot of fun here with the total stupidity of some, though I'm not out to prove myself. I could begin a Bible proofs discussion starting with some 2000 fulfilled prophecies, though 'pearl before swine' is a saying which springs to mind having real application here. Not only unappreciated, but a useless waste of time and effort.
When I see glimpses of appreciation and intelligent comment, it encourages me, as I'm always here for those of you. It might be fun also to comment on a couple of opposing thoughts.
"I have read bits of the bible and I don't like the slavery, beatings, rape, incest, murders, genocide, blind wrath of the principal protaganist and the wimpering servitude.
It is bizarre that some peole actually believe this nonsense.
Physfan"
What an absurd comment! I speedread obnoxious, disrespectful, and hateful claptrap, and don't respond in like manner. Thus I will skip the majority of your post.
But so you don't like that? Who does? Obviously the perpetrators must. Atrocities like that have and still do occur throughout history. The Bible record is there to teach lessons and warnings to God's people. Neither God nor his people have ever acted in that manner, though many of his opposers do. He is justified in adversely judging unrepentant sinners, being the Creator, and has dealt with many of these types in the past, yes even whole nations who unrepentantly practiced evil. Thus many of these sort were dispossessed of their land when the Israelites were given the Promised Land. The destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, the worldwide deluge. Pharaoh and his armies at the Red Sea. These are all warning examples of what is to come when the world of ungodly sinners will again be destroyed.
I don't say these things to scare people. As a people we are not scared. So long as we do our best to please God, which involves taking active steps to know and carry out his will, we don't need to fear the future. Our message primarily has taken a soft approach, however as the end draws very near, it will be taking on the tone of an urgent warning, just as in Noah's days. Any of those people could have been saved. All that was required was a simple act of obedience to save their lives, and that was to get aboard the ark with Noah and his family. Today God has an organization which He uses which may well be likened to that ark of salvation, and we must be aboard with a ticket. This ticket of validation corresponds to baptism.
When I see glimpses of appreciation and intelligent comment, it encourages me, as I'm always here for those of you. It might be fun also to comment on a couple of opposing thoughts.
"I have read bits of the bible and I don't like the slavery, beatings, rape, incest, murders, genocide, blind wrath of the principal protaganist and the wimpering servitude.
It is bizarre that some peole actually believe this nonsense.
Physfan"
What an absurd comment! I speedread obnoxious, disrespectful, and hateful claptrap, and don't respond in like manner. Thus I will skip the majority of your post.
But so you don't like that? Who does? Obviously the perpetrators must. Atrocities like that have and still do occur throughout history. The Bible record is there to teach lessons and warnings to God's people. Neither God nor his people have ever acted in that manner, though many of his opposers do. He is justified in adversely judging unrepentant sinners, being the Creator, and has dealt with many of these types in the past, yes even whole nations who unrepentantly practiced evil. Thus many of these sort were dispossessed of their land when the Israelites were given the Promised Land. The destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, the worldwide deluge. Pharaoh and his armies at the Red Sea. These are all warning examples of what is to come when the world of ungodly sinners will again be destroyed.
I don't say these things to scare people. As a people we are not scared. So long as we do our best to please God, which involves taking active steps to know and carry out his will, we don't need to fear the future. Our message primarily has taken a soft approach, however as the end draws very near, it will be taking on the tone of an urgent warning, just as in Noah's days. Any of those people could have been saved. All that was required was a simple act of obedience to save their lives, and that was to get aboard the ark with Noah and his family. Today God has an organization which He uses which may well be likened to that ark of salvation, and we must be aboard with a ticket. This ticket of validation corresponds to baptism.
vkamath says :
"As for me, I try to be a rational person and I cannot accept any conditions or hold any beliefs without concrete evidence of their source.
Faith is the basis of Religion. We should leave it at that. But PhilP wants to pass off his beliefs as science and selectively examine the evidence for Evolution while deliberately ignoring other irrational concepts of Religion.
To be rational we should base our beliefs on evidence rather than searching for evidence that matches our beliefs.
As you know, I have posted many times about people who use brain wash, scare tactics, emotional black mail to scare the gullible into submission. Wherever I see such an attempt, I try to expose them. PhilP, did use some of these techniques moderately and I had to respond."
Again the quotes not working. Sorry too that I'm reading these comments from the last, back. Bible teachings are also rational and practical. It offers a practical guide to living which we adhere to and thus avoid many of the problems plaguing mankind through their ignorance and disobedience to right standards. There is a lot of concrete evidence for the Bible, but picture this if you would. Jesus comes down here, performs miracles, heals the sick, the deaf, the blind, demon-possessed, raises the dead. You witness all this personally, yet you further demand from him a sign to prove he is God's Son. Sound rational? That's how the religious leaders back then behaved. So did Jesus jump through their hoops for them? Not at all. Really we believe out of faith, yet we also have proofs. If I laid them all before you you would still not believe. If they wouldn't believe Jesus, even less his disciples.
I'm not claiming religion is science. The topic of this forum is Creation and Evolution. That's what I'm discussing. You think teaching is brainwashing? How have I forced you to accept my statements? In fact God has given us free choice because He wants us to obey him out of love, not because we are robots with no choice. We don't force convert people or our children like many religions of Christendom and baptize babies. That negates free will and the meaning of baptism. Nor do we run crusades or kill our members in other countries in wartime.
The fear tactics you propagate only reflect your irrational hatred of an honest, law-abiding, and peaceful people.
"As for me, I try to be a rational person and I cannot accept any conditions or hold any beliefs without concrete evidence of their source.
Faith is the basis of Religion. We should leave it at that. But PhilP wants to pass off his beliefs as science and selectively examine the evidence for Evolution while deliberately ignoring other irrational concepts of Religion.
To be rational we should base our beliefs on evidence rather than searching for evidence that matches our beliefs.
As you know, I have posted many times about people who use brain wash, scare tactics, emotional black mail to scare the gullible into submission. Wherever I see such an attempt, I try to expose them. PhilP, did use some of these techniques moderately and I had to respond."
Again the quotes not working. Sorry too that I'm reading these comments from the last, back. Bible teachings are also rational and practical. It offers a practical guide to living which we adhere to and thus avoid many of the problems plaguing mankind through their ignorance and disobedience to right standards. There is a lot of concrete evidence for the Bible, but picture this if you would. Jesus comes down here, performs miracles, heals the sick, the deaf, the blind, demon-possessed, raises the dead. You witness all this personally, yet you further demand from him a sign to prove he is God's Son. Sound rational? That's how the religious leaders back then behaved. So did Jesus jump through their hoops for them? Not at all. Really we believe out of faith, yet we also have proofs. If I laid them all before you you would still not believe. If they wouldn't believe Jesus, even less his disciples.
I'm not claiming religion is science. The topic of this forum is Creation and Evolution. That's what I'm discussing. You think teaching is brainwashing? How have I forced you to accept my statements? In fact God has given us free choice because He wants us to obey him out of love, not because we are robots with no choice. We don't force convert people or our children like many religions of Christendom and baptize babies. That negates free will and the meaning of baptism. Nor do we run crusades or kill our members in other countries in wartime.
The fear tactics you propagate only reflect your irrational hatred of an honest, law-abiding, and peaceful people.
Yes I realize the topic varies from the strict "Creation vs Evolution" type discussion. When it comes to Creation, yes, many nominal Christians will merely state that faith is enough, or that because we are here is proof enough. Although these are partly true, it isn't really saying anything convincing to an opposer is it? I could copy and paste reams of evidence and studies of life and the universe; we have books on these things; [EDIT: Creation vs Evolution] but for what purpose? All the research is already done and describes things far better than I ever could. But if I posted material I would only be criticized for not making my own comment, rather than to give an honest appraisal of the material presented. Get the book "Creation" if you'd really like to study the evidence put forth from both sides. We don't even charge for our publications.
Thanks to those with positive comments. Much appreciated.
Newguy :
"Although PhilP and I would probably agree on a few things, if he is a standard Jehovah's Witness, then it is safe to assume that we have some MAJOR differences where Jesus Christ and Biblical Christianity are concerned."
If you truly feel you follow the Bible, then I appreciate your sincerity. Yes there are major differences between us and Christendom. If you wish to discuss or comment about anything, you are welcome also to contact me or the official Web site. We are proud of the glaring differences which distinguish us. One of the biggest being the pagan Trinity concept, which is not a Biblical teaching, nor any basis for it is found there. Neither do we worship or use idols and images in our worship, which is condemned in Scripture. So you see we need to be careful to follow it correctly, as these things can make our form of worship unacceptable to God. For more information on trinity origins you could try the Catholic encyclopaedia. They have always compromised their beliefs by accepting paganism into the church in order to win over more converts, claiming to "Christianize" these pagan concepts! Of course, true Christians are to be no part of the World, and must shun and avoid paganism and idolatry in all its forms, such as use of the cross.
I won't turn this too much into a Biblical discussion however, as its not exactly "Creation" per se, and neither is it fully the place for it.
Thanks to those with positive comments. Much appreciated.
Newguy :
"Although PhilP and I would probably agree on a few things, if he is a standard Jehovah's Witness, then it is safe to assume that we have some MAJOR differences where Jesus Christ and Biblical Christianity are concerned."
If you truly feel you follow the Bible, then I appreciate your sincerity. Yes there are major differences between us and Christendom. If you wish to discuss or comment about anything, you are welcome also to contact me or the official Web site. We are proud of the glaring differences which distinguish us. One of the biggest being the pagan Trinity concept, which is not a Biblical teaching, nor any basis for it is found there. Neither do we worship or use idols and images in our worship, which is condemned in Scripture. So you see we need to be careful to follow it correctly, as these things can make our form of worship unacceptable to God. For more information on trinity origins you could try the Catholic encyclopaedia. They have always compromised their beliefs by accepting paganism into the church in order to win over more converts, claiming to "Christianize" these pagan concepts! Of course, true Christians are to be no part of the World, and must shun and avoid paganism and idolatry in all its forms, such as use of the cross.
I won't turn this too much into a Biblical discussion however, as its not exactly "Creation" per se, and neither is it fully the place for it.
QUOTE (PhilP+Oct 11 2006, 10:46 AM)
I don't say these things to scare people. As a people we are not scared. So long as we do our best to please God, which involves taking active steps to know and carry out his will, we don't need to fear the future. Our message primarily has taken a soft approach, however as the end draws very near, it will be taking on the tone of an urgent warning, just as in Noah's days. Any of those people could have been saved. All that was required was a simple act of obedience to save their lives, and that was to get aboard the ark with Noah and his family. Today God has an organization which He uses which may well be likened to that ark of salvation, and we must be aboard with a ticket. This ticket of validation corresponds to baptism.
Very, very dangerous. This is so close to a 'believe in my version of God, or die' approach. Collectively, this is suicidal talk...Exactly why it is being challenged by 'pro-lifers'.
"Thus many of these sort were dispossessed of their land when the Israelites were given the Promised Land." - Exactly what is happening in the mid-east now. No 'were' about it! (And it was/still is 'promised' to them by the British/American coalition after WW2 - Hence 'religion' shows its true political face, very publicly.)
That's a mis-spelling of 'noah', by the way... It should be Knower. (As opposed to 'believer'!)
Noah yourself, PhilP. Then you will see the sense in being less confrontational.
k.
Hi Knot. I don't mean to be so confrontational. True, I have been straightforward, as the times are urgent, and I'm only summarizing here. I don't offer this warning as "my opinion" or "in my view" which may go over better with some. I have stated matters as factual because they are, and unfortunately this will offend some who choose not to accept. Them's the breaks I guess. Yet if I put it over in a wishy-washy half-hearted manner would that help? The truth has no need to be thus watered down, yet I wish to be thoughtful and respectful, and not appear rude or arrogant, so sorry if that seems to be the case.
What is happening in Israel today has nothing to do with God, however I believe it was decreed as their condemnation they would have "warfare until the end."
What is happening in Israel today has nothing to do with God, however I believe it was decreed as their condemnation they would have "warfare until the end."
QUOTE (PhilP+)
There is a lot of concrete evidence for the Bible
Please show me the evidence for Walking on Water, Resurrection, virgin birth, Angels, Satan, God.
Please show me the evidence for Walking on Water, Resurrection, virgin birth, Angels, Satan, God.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
but picture this if you would. Jesus comes down here, performs miracles, heals the sick, the deaf, the blind, demon-possessed, raises the dead. You witness all this personally, yet you further demand from him a sign to prove he is God's Son. Sound rational? That's how the religious leaders back then behaved.
If someone performs some amazing miracle (for example bring to life a person whom doctors have declared dead for 3 days), I would believe when he says he is son of God.
But we have not seen or heard (from reliable sources) about any such person. We can't blindly trust some "Holy" book which says so.
If someone performs some amazing miracle (for example bring to life a person whom doctors have declared dead for 3 days), I would believe when he says he is son of God.
But we have not seen or heard (from reliable sources) about any such person. We can't blindly trust some "Holy" book which says so.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
Really we believe out of faith, yet we also have proofs.
If you have proofs, why do you need faith?
If you have proofs, why do you need faith?
QUOTE (PhilP+)
If I laid them all before you you would still not believe. If they wouldn't believe Jesus, even less his disciples.
Try me. If you have solid evidence, I and anyone else who calls themselves rational has no option but to believe. Then it wouldn't be Religion anymore, it would be Science.
Try me. If you have solid evidence, I and anyone else who calls themselves rational has no option but to believe. Then it wouldn't be Religion anymore, it would be Science.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
You think teaching is brainwashing? How have I forced you to accept my statements?
The following is brain washing. Conclude for yourself if any of these are applicable to you.
1) Threatening with retaliation from a imaginary god, if people dont follow the rules given in your book.
2) Using emotional blackmail techniques by saying things like "<fill name> died a painful death for your sins".(What sins? Who died? )
3) Trying to convince anyone and everyone that they are sinners.
4) using pseudo science to fake validity of claims.
5) Using social position as a priest/elderly man/influential man to exploit people.
6) Talking about events and miracles which don't have proper historical validity or evidence.
The following is brain washing. Conclude for yourself if any of these are applicable to you.
1) Threatening with retaliation from a imaginary god, if people dont follow the rules given in your book.
2) Using emotional blackmail techniques by saying things like "<fill name> died a painful death for your sins".(What sins? Who died? )
3) Trying to convince anyone and everyone that they are sinners.
4) using pseudo science to fake validity of claims.
5) Using social position as a priest/elderly man/influential man to exploit people.
6) Talking about events and miracles which don't have proper historical validity or evidence.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
The fear tactics you propagate only reflect your irrational hatred of an honest, law-abiding, and peaceful people.
Now thats just tit for tat retaliation.
Now thats just tit for tat retaliation.
"Please show me the evidence for Walking on Water, Resurrection, virgin birth, Angels, Satan, God."
you want evidence for walking on water?criss angel
you want evidence for walking on water?criss angel
QUOTE (abduljakul+Oct 11 2006, 08:55 PM)
"Please show me the evidence for Walking on Water, Resurrection, virgin birth, Angels, Satan, God."
you want evidence for walking on water?criss angel
There's the "Jesus Lizard", a lizard that can run on water. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basiliscus_%28genus%29 )
Perhaps someone confused the Jesus Lizard with Jesus Christ at some point in history and that's why they thought that Jesus Christ walked on water.
- Dave
you want evidence for walking on water?criss angel
There's the "Jesus Lizard", a lizard that can run on water. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basiliscus_%28genus%29 )
Perhaps someone confused the Jesus Lizard with Jesus Christ at some point in history and that's why they thought that Jesus Christ walked on water.
- Dave
PhilP,
So god put us on the world so we could go around and tell everyone about god and then once everyone believed in him, we could dance around and hold hands and wait until we die and go to heaven? I just don't get it. . . why would god want us to worship and spread "his" word our whole lives. So what would we all do if everyone on earth had this unified view of god? wait till we die so we have a look at him? Seriously.
Also I'm curious to know what your take is on the TWO creation stories and the TWO stories of Noah which are clearly illustrated in the bible.
So god put us on the world so we could go around and tell everyone about god and then once everyone believed in him, we could dance around and hold hands and wait until we die and go to heaven? I just don't get it. . . why would god want us to worship and spread "his" word our whole lives. So what would we all do if everyone on earth had this unified view of god? wait till we die so we have a look at him? Seriously.
Also I'm curious to know what your take is on the TWO creation stories and the TWO stories of Noah which are clearly illustrated in the bible.
"There's the "Jesus Lizard", a lizard that can run on water."
seriously do you know who criss angel is?what i'm saying is it is possible for people to walk on water and criss angel proved that
seriously do you know who criss angel is?what i'm saying is it is possible for people to walk on water and criss angel proved that
QUOTE (abduljakul+Oct 12 2006, 09:56 PM)
"There's the "Jesus Lizard", a lizard that can run on water."
seriously do you know who criss angel is?what i'm saying is it is possible for people to walk on water and criss angel proved that
Yeah, he's from Vegas though. Jesus was from Nazareth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA
- Dave
seriously do you know who criss angel is?what i'm saying is it is possible for people to walk on water and criss angel proved that
Yeah, he's from Vegas though. Jesus was from Nazareth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA
- Dave
QUOTE (abduljakul+Oct 12 2006, 09:56 PM)
"There's the "Jesus Lizard", a lizard that can run on water."
seriously do you know who criss angel is?what i'm saying is it is possible for people to walk on water and criss angel proved that
Are you serious?
Criss Angel is a illusionist, he does not allow anyone to examine closely or do a scientific analysis. Also, he does not call this trick as a miracle.
Obviously, it is not possible for anyone to walk on water under normal circumstances.
seriously do you know who criss angel is?what i'm saying is it is possible for people to walk on water and criss angel proved that
Are you serious?
Criss Angel is a illusionist, he does not allow anyone to examine closely or do a scientific analysis. Also, he does not call this trick as a miracle.
Obviously, it is not possible for anyone to walk on water under normal circumstances.
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 13 2006, 03:46 PM)
Are you serious?
I'm pretty sure he's not serious.
- Dave
I'm pretty sure he's not serious.
- Dave
I can cure leprosy with prayer! (by slipping the patient some drugs ....)
QUOTE (El Machinae+)
I can cure leprosy with prayer! (by slipping the patient some drugs ....)
El Machinae: Have you ever followed the Biblical mandates for becoming a Christian? Assuming the answer to be a resounding "NO!", then why do you mock things that you're ignorant of? I have prayed, SUCCESSFULLY, for many people over the last 18 years. I've belabored this point in the past...I'm only mentioning it again to make you think before you speak/type. As an "outsider", isn't it quite possible that you don't have the "inside scoop", so to speak? Just something for you to hopefully ponder. Take care.
El Machinae: Have you ever followed the Biblical mandates for becoming a Christian? Assuming the answer to be a resounding "NO!", then why do you mock things that you're ignorant of? I have prayed, SUCCESSFULLY, for many people over the last 18 years. I've belabored this point in the past...I'm only mentioning it again to make you think before you speak/type. As an "outsider", isn't it quite possible that you don't have the "inside scoop", so to speak? Just something for you to hopefully ponder. Take care.
Oh, I'm teasing because I love ... plus it's true that if I pray and slip in some medication I can cure leprosy.
Anyway, yes, I have gone through the process of becoming a Christian. I think I'm fairly familiar regarding the entire experience - I was a believer for over 10 years and even made it to the 'advanced level'. I've prayed for sick people and the like - unlike you, I received no effects that aren't easily explained as coincidence.
So now I wouldn't pray for an amputee because I don't expect anything to happen. Would you?
As well, why didn't God tell you that I used to be a Christian? I assume you've prayed for me (you seem the type) and have gotten spiritual feedback. You think He'd have told you.
Anyway, yes, I have gone through the process of becoming a Christian. I think I'm fairly familiar regarding the entire experience - I was a believer for over 10 years and even made it to the 'advanced level'. I've prayed for sick people and the like - unlike you, I received no effects that aren't easily explained as coincidence.
So now I wouldn't pray for an amputee because I don't expect anything to happen. Would you?
As well, why didn't God tell you that I used to be a Christian? I assume you've prayed for me (you seem the type) and have gotten spiritual feedback. You think He'd have told you.
QUOTE (El Machinae+)
Anyway, yes, I have gone through the process of becoming a Christian. I think I'm fairly familiar regarding the entire experience - I was a believer for over 10 years and even made it to the 'advanced level'. I've prayed for sick people and the like - unlike you, I received no effects that aren't easily explained as coincidence.
So now I wouldn't pray for an amputee because I don't expect anything to happen. Would you?
El Machinae: Regarding "the process", can you honestly say that it is anything like what I briefly described to "Knot of this world" in the "What source for self-esteem?" thread in the "Off-topic" forum earlier today? I have no idea whatsoever what you mean when you speak of the "advanced level". Care to elaborate? I've never personally prayed for an amputee, so I cannot honestly answer your question. I can say that I would most definitely spend more time in private prayer alone with God before meeting the amputee. I'll elaborate on "why", if need be.
This is what happened to me. I was born and raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school for 7 years. Much more time was spent teaching us tykes about the wrath and vengeance of God than the love and forgiveness of God. Much more time was spent on learning how to repent your sins in the confessional than on how to live with tolerance, forgiveness, and goodwill towards each other. And much more violence ensued from our nuns towards us little kids than benevolence. These are examples, just tiny ones, but amplified in legion throughout, of practices not in keeping with what the teachings of Christ in the New Testament ask of us.
I believe that the theory of two Gods in the OT are valid. But with a caveat to be understood: There are not actually two Gods, but two perceptions of the same God: one is from an exalted and clear unclouded mind - the God of Genesis 1:1 to 2:1, and the other from a confused mind lacking in the knowledge of the power of Love, which results in a perceived God doing harm in various ways to His created - this starting from Genesis 2:2.
The theory holds that the writer of Genesis up to 2:1 was truly divinely inspired, and the writers of the subsequent books of the OT wrote from their perceptions and were NOT divinely inspired, but rather the rest of the OT was a chronology of not just events but of a slowly evolving understanding of the ways of the Spirit, finally culminating in the ready-mindedness to comprehend the 'new' teachings of Christ, which do differ from the exhortations of the OT, and reflect a mature perception of Spiritual reality.
As such I see the Bible more as a treasure map for the mind, than a collection of "God's Word". Many people I know reject the Bible because in seeing it as the irrefutable Word of God while containing so many glaring contradictions and examples of God's 'wrath" (He even apologizes for the flood as if He could make such an extreme mistake...) - they don't accept this disingenuous and capricious nature of Deity. Indeed, God is seen in the OT as emotional, mistake-prone, quick to anger, unhesitantly violent unto mass death, and as vindictive as His imperfect creations. In short, not exalted at all. These Biblical paradigms invented by people need to change to even begin to present a coherent God of integrity and fidelity to those who see the literally unbelievable shortcomings of God as presented by the OT.
It is so important to realize that if one sees God as just a big strong human complete with all negative human emotions and weaknesses they are not comprehending God. I know so many Christians who have no problem with God 'getting mad', 'getting even', 'losing His temper' (once again the flood, etc., etc.) asking for human sacrifice, glorifying violence as a necessary 'punishment', as 'justice' always trumping 'mercy'.....the arrogance of tacitly making oneself a god by making their God like them is practiced in the ignorance of true Spiritual Living and overlooked in the confusion of their religious indoctrination. Meanwhile God is invoked on both sides of war. Mr. Bush has precisely claimed that God told him to do what has been done to the people of Iraq. And bin-Laden has dedicated his life of terror-mongering to the will of Allah. These examples and unending other examples great and small offer proof positive that the vast majority of humans have little clue as to the infinite (but reconcilable) differences between God and man, and little realization that they see God only in their own limited erred perceptions, thus humanizing Deity, rather than spiritualizing humanity.
Correcting our perception of God to the exalted and truly magnificent level, getting Him out of our gutter that we put Him in, would do wonders to aid in the intelligent and necessary discourse atheists require to even begin to accept viability of agnosticism, the next step in a spiritual awakening (which does not mean a moral or virtuous awakening, as that is in no way mutually exclusive to atheism.)
I know this will seem like blasphemy to some, but I'm attempting to present the idea of needed paths towards reconciliation, and no one should ever condemn another for lack of understanding, regardless of the beliefs any hold dear to themselves. We're all in this together, we've been trying for a long time, and we have a long time to go. The wars today are an example of the effects of the humanity we all believe in; the peace we all desire deep down is an example of the effects of the Spirit we want to believe in. Although I feel rage at the vile actions of this government and other seats of power, I also believe Spirit can prevail against it when there is enough belief to allow it to work. But it can't unless we incorporate it, which requires correct, thus true belief in it. It's our free will, one way or another. (all imho)
So now I wouldn't pray for an amputee because I don't expect anything to happen. Would you?
El Machinae: Regarding "the process", can you honestly say that it is anything like what I briefly described to "Knot of this world" in the "What source for self-esteem?" thread in the "Off-topic" forum earlier today? I have no idea whatsoever what you mean when you speak of the "advanced level". Care to elaborate? I've never personally prayed for an amputee, so I cannot honestly answer your question. I can say that I would most definitely spend more time in private prayer alone with God before meeting the amputee. I'll elaborate on "why", if need be.
QUOTE (El Machinae+)
As well, why didn't God tell you that I used to be a Christian? I assume you've prayed for me (you seem the type) and have gotten spiritual feedback. You think He'd have told you.
Although I am "the type", I haven't "specifically" prayed for you. I have prayed general prayers for all of you as a group. I'll be happy to elaborate on that as well, if need be. Take care.
P.S. By the way, I personally wouldn't be the least bit intimidated to pray for someone with leprosy or to "lay hands on them" in Jesus Christ's name.
Although I am "the type", I haven't "specifically" prayed for you. I have prayed general prayers for all of you as a group. I'll be happy to elaborate on that as well, if need be. Take care.
P.S. By the way, I personally wouldn't be the least bit intimidated to pray for someone with leprosy or to "lay hands on them" in Jesus Christ's name.
Without offense, your longer writings are a bit harder to follow. As well, I was rather young when I was born again. I would certainly say that I 'knew' the Lord - that I experienced the emotions and presence that one is likely to describe with the event.
That said, I still realised it was bunk. These emotions and feelings are merely trained activities. One can train himself to feel this 'presence' upon command, like someone can train himself to see one of those "Magic Eye" diagrams. In the end, I realised, through extensive experience, that the Bible was false and that God did not exist as described.
Logically, I cannot accept that this reality was made by a loving being; especially one described as 'true love' or 'true good'. There is too much that is at odds with this statement.
Now that I'm older, I'm exposed more and more to the falsehoods of the Christian faith. Vast swaths of the OT are either false or at odds with reasonable morality. Vast swaths of modern interpretation are clearly false as well. Finally, I have seen and experienced many instances of people's faith leading to greater harm than good, despite their convictions.
Now, I've 'been there' with regards to Christian faith. I have been exposed to it, and even believed it. And I can easily reject it as not true. I don't hate the Christian faith, though, don't get me wrong (many people use it as a source of morality) - but sometimes the faith (as a whole) harms my society and teaches falsehoods. That is why I object to it.
Regards
That said, I still realised it was bunk. These emotions and feelings are merely trained activities. One can train himself to feel this 'presence' upon command, like someone can train himself to see one of those "Magic Eye" diagrams. In the end, I realised, through extensive experience, that the Bible was false and that God did not exist as described.
Logically, I cannot accept that this reality was made by a loving being; especially one described as 'true love' or 'true good'. There is too much that is at odds with this statement.
Now that I'm older, I'm exposed more and more to the falsehoods of the Christian faith. Vast swaths of the OT are either false or at odds with reasonable morality. Vast swaths of modern interpretation are clearly false as well. Finally, I have seen and experienced many instances of people's faith leading to greater harm than good, despite their convictions.
Now, I've 'been there' with regards to Christian faith. I have been exposed to it, and even believed it. And I can easily reject it as not true. I don't hate the Christian faith, though, don't get me wrong (many people use it as a source of morality) - but sometimes the faith (as a whole) harms my society and teaches falsehoods. That is why I object to it.
Regards
QUOTE
I realised, through extensive experience, that the Bible was false and that God did not exist as described.
This is what happened to me. I was born and raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school for 7 years. Much more time was spent teaching us tykes about the wrath and vengeance of God than the love and forgiveness of God. Much more time was spent on learning how to repent your sins in the confessional than on how to live with tolerance, forgiveness, and goodwill towards each other. And much more violence ensued from our nuns towards us little kids than benevolence. These are examples, just tiny ones, but amplified in legion throughout, of practices not in keeping with what the teachings of Christ in the New Testament ask of us.
I believe that the theory of two Gods in the OT are valid. But with a caveat to be understood: There are not actually two Gods, but two perceptions of the same God: one is from an exalted and clear unclouded mind - the God of Genesis 1:1 to 2:1, and the other from a confused mind lacking in the knowledge of the power of Love, which results in a perceived God doing harm in various ways to His created - this starting from Genesis 2:2.
The theory holds that the writer of Genesis up to 2:1 was truly divinely inspired, and the writers of the subsequent books of the OT wrote from their perceptions and were NOT divinely inspired, but rather the rest of the OT was a chronology of not just events but of a slowly evolving understanding of the ways of the Spirit, finally culminating in the ready-mindedness to comprehend the 'new' teachings of Christ, which do differ from the exhortations of the OT, and reflect a mature perception of Spiritual reality.
As such I see the Bible more as a treasure map for the mind, than a collection of "God's Word". Many people I know reject the Bible because in seeing it as the irrefutable Word of God while containing so many glaring contradictions and examples of God's 'wrath" (He even apologizes for the flood as if He could make such an extreme mistake...) - they don't accept this disingenuous and capricious nature of Deity. Indeed, God is seen in the OT as emotional, mistake-prone, quick to anger, unhesitantly violent unto mass death, and as vindictive as His imperfect creations. In short, not exalted at all. These Biblical paradigms invented by people need to change to even begin to present a coherent God of integrity and fidelity to those who see the literally unbelievable shortcomings of God as presented by the OT.
It is so important to realize that if one sees God as just a big strong human complete with all negative human emotions and weaknesses they are not comprehending God. I know so many Christians who have no problem with God 'getting mad', 'getting even', 'losing His temper' (once again the flood, etc., etc.) asking for human sacrifice, glorifying violence as a necessary 'punishment', as 'justice' always trumping 'mercy'.....the arrogance of tacitly making oneself a god by making their God like them is practiced in the ignorance of true Spiritual Living and overlooked in the confusion of their religious indoctrination. Meanwhile God is invoked on both sides of war. Mr. Bush has precisely claimed that God told him to do what has been done to the people of Iraq. And bin-Laden has dedicated his life of terror-mongering to the will of Allah. These examples and unending other examples great and small offer proof positive that the vast majority of humans have little clue as to the infinite (but reconcilable) differences between God and man, and little realization that they see God only in their own limited erred perceptions, thus humanizing Deity, rather than spiritualizing humanity.
Correcting our perception of God to the exalted and truly magnificent level, getting Him out of our gutter that we put Him in, would do wonders to aid in the intelligent and necessary discourse atheists require to even begin to accept viability of agnosticism, the next step in a spiritual awakening (which does not mean a moral or virtuous awakening, as that is in no way mutually exclusive to atheism.)
I know this will seem like blasphemy to some, but I'm attempting to present the idea of needed paths towards reconciliation, and no one should ever condemn another for lack of understanding, regardless of the beliefs any hold dear to themselves. We're all in this together, we've been trying for a long time, and we have a long time to go. The wars today are an example of the effects of the humanity we all believe in; the peace we all desire deep down is an example of the effects of the Spirit we want to believe in. Although I feel rage at the vile actions of this government and other seats of power, I also believe Spirit can prevail against it when there is enough belief to allow it to work. But it can't unless we incorporate it, which requires correct, thus true belief in it. It's our free will, one way or another. (all imho)
QUOTE (El Machinae+)
Without offense, your longer writings are a bit harder to follow. As well, I was rather young when I was born again. I would certainly say that I 'knew' the Lord - that I experienced the emotions and presence that one is likely to describe with the event.
That said, I still realised it was bunk. These emotions and feelings are merely trained activities. One can train himself to feel this 'presence' upon command, like someone can train himself to see one of those "Magic Eye" diagrams. In the end, I realised, through extensive experience, that the Bible was false and that God did not exist as described.
El Machinae: No offense taken at all. The only thing that "offends" me is when people refuse to engage in open, honest dialogue. Even though I disagree with your conclusions, I appreciate the fact that you've openly and honestly shared your views. That said, it is quite apparent to me that you and I are NOT talking about the same type of "knowing" when it comes to the Lord. I am fully aware that there are all sorts of "techniques"(usually manipulative, peer-pressured "brainwashing") that are employed by those who don't even "know" God themselves to convince others that they have actually been "born again" when they haven't truly been. This is the backdrop for what I recently stated on another thread:
Gen. 8:22. This is when God said that He wouldn't ever again curse (or blame) the ground (world) for man's evil, since the evil is already with him, not the world. Obviously ancient phrases translated ever and anon lose absolute fidelity. It can't be helped. Every Bible I have prints this and endless other passages differently. Whenever there is conflicting or controversial statements credited to God or Christ, we should blame it on our mistranslations rather than invert or corrupt the teachings in order to explain the passages. Writings and perceptions are corruptible, a perfect being is not. As such neither the Bible nor the Cabbalah, Bhagavad-Gita, Qur'an exist in purity. But the crux, the focal point of the teachings of all of them are in alignment. This is a far more important conclusion than throwing any of them out because of some human-caused discrepancies between each other or within themselves.
I see these Books as a chronology of the slow awakening of the world to the Spirit. There is much controversy in these written chronologies, but there is great clarity too, for those who truly seek wisdom. This is true for all treatises on Deity and Deity's relationship to us. I do not hold that there is one special Book of God. Humans want themselves and their beliefs to be 'special'; that creates conflict and dissention which rails against the unity that is our heritage, both evolutionary and spiritual. In fact humans don't even need a book to discover their spirituality; God is not limited to a book. Spirit is experienced in the loving benevolence towards one's neighbors. It is sought by doing this. Actions, not words. Real belief in a God demands LIVING as such, to the best of one's abilities, each and every day. One can find Spirit without ever having been familiar with a book. It's the religious indoctrination that weakens so many into the view that THEY are special in the eyes of God/Jehovah/Allah and that their way is the only way. And also creates such disdain towards each other, opposite to the teachings that were never meant for some, but always for all. (imho)
That said, I still realised it was bunk. These emotions and feelings are merely trained activities. One can train himself to feel this 'presence' upon command, like someone can train himself to see one of those "Magic Eye" diagrams. In the end, I realised, through extensive experience, that the Bible was false and that God did not exist as described.
El Machinae: No offense taken at all. The only thing that "offends" me is when people refuse to engage in open, honest dialogue. Even though I disagree with your conclusions, I appreciate the fact that you've openly and honestly shared your views. That said, it is quite apparent to me that you and I are NOT talking about the same type of "knowing" when it comes to the Lord. I am fully aware that there are all sorts of "techniques"(usually manipulative, peer-pressured "brainwashing") that are employed by those who don't even "know" God themselves to convince others that they have actually been "born again" when they haven't truly been. This is the backdrop for what I recently stated on another thread:
QUOTE (newguy "What source for self-esteem?"+)
Modern day "Christendom"(again, in quotes deliberately) is, for the most part, an absolute mess. I've met THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of professing Christians who simply don't KNOW Christ. This is NOT just my opinion...many of them have told me so themselves. No, most have simply been reconciled to "church" through their "pastor" as opposed to being reconciled unto God through Christ. I can honestly say that I've NEVER personally met a "pastor" or "minister" that I believe is "saved" according to the Bibical model. I've met a multitude of "wolves in sheep's clothing" who seek to "kill those who are fed"(those who actually KNOW Christ) while simultaneously "feeding not the flock"(Ezekiel 34:3). Sad.
The type of "knowing" that you describe seems to be a mantra that is repeated to/by an individual continually in an effort to convince them that a non-reality is indeed a reality. As I said, I've seen those "techniques" employed a multitude of times and I am vehemently opposed to such actions myself. Christianity was NEVER meant to be an "argument" that is accepted...it was ALWAYS meant to be a genuine reconciliation between God and man through Christ in which the individual is then indwelt by the Spirit of God and "the two" TRULY "become one". I have had/do have much interaction with the Spirit of God and none of it was/is "worked up" in my mind. I'd be willing to elaborate, if need be.
I would also suggest that you and I have varying descriptions of the word "faith". I've done my best on many occasions on this forum to describe what Biblical "faith" really is. To my dismay, but not to my surprise, my explanation(which is Biblical) has been totally rejected or ignored. As far as I'm concerned(and I'm NOT specifically speaking of you right now), several people on this forum have set up strawman arguments in regards to many things contained/explained within scripture to further their own wicked agendas. Once again, I'll be glad to elaborate on that as well, if need be. Take care.
The type of "knowing" that you describe seems to be a mantra that is repeated to/by an individual continually in an effort to convince them that a non-reality is indeed a reality. As I said, I've seen those "techniques" employed a multitude of times and I am vehemently opposed to such actions myself. Christianity was NEVER meant to be an "argument" that is accepted...it was ALWAYS meant to be a genuine reconciliation between God and man through Christ in which the individual is then indwelt by the Spirit of God and "the two" TRULY "become one". I have had/do have much interaction with the Spirit of God and none of it was/is "worked up" in my mind. I'd be willing to elaborate, if need be.
I would also suggest that you and I have varying descriptions of the word "faith". I've done my best on many occasions on this forum to describe what Biblical "faith" really is. To my dismay, but not to my surprise, my explanation(which is Biblical) has been totally rejected or ignored. As far as I'm concerned(and I'm NOT specifically speaking of you right now), several people on this forum have set up strawman arguments in regards to many things contained/explained within scripture to further their own wicked agendas. Once again, I'll be glad to elaborate on that as well, if need be. Take care.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
I was born and raised Catholic...
soundhertz: Say no more. Catholicism and Biblical Christianity are WORLDS apart. I've documented some of the differences in the past, but I'm afraid that, for the most part, it has fallen upon deaf ears. That is NOT a "shot" at you, by the way, as we've never personally dialogued on that topic to my recollection.
Without going into great detail at this moment, I would also suggest to you that there are NOT two different perceptions of the same God in the Old Testament, but rather two totally different types of people that are being addressed in the Old Testament. One group, the great minority, are those who were genuinely "circumcised in the heart" and truly sought after and communed with the living God. The other group, the vast majority, were religious hypocrites who remained "uncircumcised in both heart and ears" despite constant strivings from God.
When did God "apologize" for the flood? I'm a bit sleep-deprived as I type, but I don't recall that. Care to elaborate? Talk to you later.
soundhertz: Say no more. Catholicism and Biblical Christianity are WORLDS apart. I've documented some of the differences in the past, but I'm afraid that, for the most part, it has fallen upon deaf ears. That is NOT a "shot" at you, by the way, as we've never personally dialogued on that topic to my recollection.
Without going into great detail at this moment, I would also suggest to you that there are NOT two different perceptions of the same God in the Old Testament, but rather two totally different types of people that are being addressed in the Old Testament. One group, the great minority, are those who were genuinely "circumcised in the heart" and truly sought after and communed with the living God. The other group, the vast majority, were religious hypocrites who remained "uncircumcised in both heart and ears" despite constant strivings from God.
When did God "apologize" for the flood? I'm a bit sleep-deprived as I type, but I don't recall that. Care to elaborate? Talk to you later.
Hi again. Many of you have a completely erroneous view of God, the Bible, and true Christianity. That's hardly surprising, since you have little or no familiarity with the subjects. Many of you also are rude and arrogant, but you don't mind. I try to read all the new comments however, though it is hard to give serious attention to such, and I end up forgetting a lot of it before I can even reply. Then I wonder if it's worth scanning back.
One comment I recall was "how do I explain the two different Creation and Flood stories in the Bible"? If you are serious, I will gather some information, as I personally have only heard about the claim of two different Creation accounts, but not the other.
Just before that, another point I recall is that my religion has endless flaws. Really? How many beliefs do we have? An endless amount? Nevertheless, if that is the case, you are denying God's Word then, which we of all people adhere closely to. I noted too that even though you had "no time" to elaborate, you didn't cite so much as one instance.
Sorry to the person who feels we are not all sinners, but the fact is that Jesus was the only perfect human, apart from Adam and Eve before they sinned. Since we are all their children, we all have that inherited sin, and are all in need of redemption, the price for which was paid by Jesus' sacrifice. The wages sin pays is death (not hellfire btw), but the gift God gives is everlasting life. The time fast approaches when that will become a reality for all obedient ones.
The spirit realm is another proof of God's existence, yet not for those of you who scoff at such things. Yet I along with millions of others have experienced outright demon attacks. Not to mention innumerable UFO sightings (many tied in), media reports of demonic activity, the occult, seances, magic (including levitation-passing the hoop) are all these phenomena figments of overactive imaginations and liars? What about all the musos who "sell their soul" to the devil for fame and success? Fantasy? What about the legions of rock fans who constantly sign for the devil? Are they deluded? Why is the world so evil and constantly sinking further into the depths of evil and degradation, in this age of "enlightenment" and so many wanting peace? That itself is not a proof aside from fulfilling Bible prophecy, yet there's far greater evil involved here than what mere men could conjure up.
One comment I recall was "how do I explain the two different Creation and Flood stories in the Bible"? If you are serious, I will gather some information, as I personally have only heard about the claim of two different Creation accounts, but not the other.
Just before that, another point I recall is that my religion has endless flaws. Really? How many beliefs do we have? An endless amount? Nevertheless, if that is the case, you are denying God's Word then, which we of all people adhere closely to. I noted too that even though you had "no time" to elaborate, you didn't cite so much as one instance.
Sorry to the person who feels we are not all sinners, but the fact is that Jesus was the only perfect human, apart from Adam and Eve before they sinned. Since we are all their children, we all have that inherited sin, and are all in need of redemption, the price for which was paid by Jesus' sacrifice. The wages sin pays is death (not hellfire btw), but the gift God gives is everlasting life. The time fast approaches when that will become a reality for all obedient ones.
The spirit realm is another proof of God's existence, yet not for those of you who scoff at such things. Yet I along with millions of others have experienced outright demon attacks. Not to mention innumerable UFO sightings (many tied in), media reports of demonic activity, the occult, seances, magic (including levitation-passing the hoop) are all these phenomena figments of overactive imaginations and liars? What about all the musos who "sell their soul" to the devil for fame and success? Fantasy? What about the legions of rock fans who constantly sign for the devil? Are they deluded? Why is the world so evil and constantly sinking further into the depths of evil and degradation, in this age of "enlightenment" and so many wanting peace? That itself is not a proof aside from fulfilling Bible prophecy, yet there's far greater evil involved here than what mere men could conjure up.
I have no intention of trying to explain Biblical miracles, though God has full control over the elements he created and sustains. These were performed for particular practical reasons, but also as added proofs of who Jesus was, as it fulfilled prophecy concerning him. He also said that if any of us had faith the size of a mustard grain (very small), we could transplant mountains, so I guess that we could well petition God to do that if there were sufficient reason, and if we had an ounce of faith.
I will give you one sign, as Jesus gave the religious hypocrites of his day. The miracle of his resurrection, for which there were about 500 eyewitnesses, as he remained on earth afterward for about 40 days before ascending to heaven.
Jesus had faith that God would resurrect him also as promised, and thus he willingly gave up his earthly life. He actually had to manoeuvre himself into the position to be arrested. Even then as he said, he could have asked his Father to supply him with more than 12 legions (many thousands) of angels at that moment, but his kingship was to be in heaven, not on earth, and he came here to call sinners, to glorify his Father's name, and to provide the ransom.
I will give you one sign, as Jesus gave the religious hypocrites of his day. The miracle of his resurrection, for which there were about 500 eyewitnesses, as he remained on earth afterward for about 40 days before ascending to heaven.
Jesus had faith that God would resurrect him also as promised, and thus he willingly gave up his earthly life. He actually had to manoeuvre himself into the position to be arrested. Even then as he said, he could have asked his Father to supply him with more than 12 legions (many thousands) of angels at that moment, but his kingship was to be in heaven, not on earth, and he came here to call sinners, to glorify his Father's name, and to provide the ransom.
Hmm. What's going on with these forums? I wanted to add a comment but I can't edit now.
Just wanted to include under the "magic" bit the Indian rope trick where they climb an unsupported rope and disappear into the sky. Yes, that is actually done. It is no trick.
Just wanted to include under the "magic" bit the Indian rope trick where they climb an unsupported rope and disappear into the sky. Yes, that is actually done. It is no trick.
For any wishing to know, and it is important to know how to answer such claims, I am providing a response to the "two" Creation accounts. This will have greater meaning when read carefully and when the Scriptures are accessed.
..The way a narrative is constructed can lead to an apparent contradiction. At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.—Genesis 2:5–4:26.
The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “Jehovah God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.—Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.
Read the Account Carefully
Sometimes, all that is needed to resolve apparent contradictions is to read the account carefully and reason on the information provided. (Watchtower 1974)
..The way a narrative is constructed can lead to an apparent contradiction. At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.—Genesis 2:5–4:26.
The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “Jehovah God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.—Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.
Read the Account Carefully
Sometimes, all that is needed to resolve apparent contradictions is to read the account carefully and reason on the information provided. (Watchtower 1974)
Ok, don't remember who it was, but you will need to enlighten me on your claim of two different Biblical Flood accounts. However I have some other info which may interest some, along with secular Flood accounts.
What evidence proves that there truly was a global deluge?
Other possible evidence of a drastic change: Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice. In fact, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously. Some have pointed to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a universal flood. Others, however, favor explanations for the death of these animals that do not involve an earth-wide catastrophe. Proof that the Flood occurred is not dependent on such fossils and frozen animal remains.
Flood Legends. Such a cataclysm as the Deluge, which washed the whole world of that time out of existence, would never be forgotten by the survivors. They would talk about it to their children and their children’s children. For 500 years after the Deluge, Shem lived on to relate the event to many generations. He died only ten years before the birth of Jacob. Moses preserved the true account in Genesis. Sometime after the Flood, when God-defying people built the Tower of Babel, Jehovah confused their language and scattered them “over all the surface of the earth.” (Ge 11:9) It was only natural that these people took with them stories of the Flood and passed them on from father to son. The fact that there are not merely a few but perhaps hundreds of different stories about that great Deluge, and that such stories are found among the traditions of many primitive races the world over, is a strong proof that all these people had a common origin and that their early forefathers shared that Flood experience in common.
These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, p. 319) states: “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 . . . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”—Edited by G. Bromiley, 1982.
In times past, certain primitive people (in Australia, Egypt, Fiji, Society Islands, Peru, Mexico, and other places) preserved a possible remnant of these traditions about the Flood by observing in November a ‘Feast of Ancestors’ or a ‘Festival of the Dead.’ Such customs reflected a memory of the destruction caused by the Deluge. According to the book Life and Work at the Great Pyramid, the festival in Mexico was held on the 17th of November because they “had a tradition that at that time the world had been previously destroyed; and they dreaded lest a similar catastrophe would, at the end of a cycle, annihilate the human race.” (By Professor C. Piazzi Smyth, Edinburgh, 1867, Vol. II, pp. 390, 391) Notes the book The Worship of the Dead: “This festival [of the dead] is . . . held by all on or about the very day on which, according to the Mosaic account, the Deluge took place, viz., the seventeenth day of the second month—the month nearly corresponding with our November.” (By J. Garnier, London, 1904, p. 4) Interestingly, the Bible reports that the Flood began “in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month.” (Ge 7:11) That “second month” corresponds to the latter part of October and the first part of November on our calendar.
What evidence proves that there truly was a global deluge?
Other possible evidence of a drastic change: Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice. In fact, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously. Some have pointed to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a universal flood. Others, however, favor explanations for the death of these animals that do not involve an earth-wide catastrophe. Proof that the Flood occurred is not dependent on such fossils and frozen animal remains.
Flood Legends. Such a cataclysm as the Deluge, which washed the whole world of that time out of existence, would never be forgotten by the survivors. They would talk about it to their children and their children’s children. For 500 years after the Deluge, Shem lived on to relate the event to many generations. He died only ten years before the birth of Jacob. Moses preserved the true account in Genesis. Sometime after the Flood, when God-defying people built the Tower of Babel, Jehovah confused their language and scattered them “over all the surface of the earth.” (Ge 11:9) It was only natural that these people took with them stories of the Flood and passed them on from father to son. The fact that there are not merely a few but perhaps hundreds of different stories about that great Deluge, and that such stories are found among the traditions of many primitive races the world over, is a strong proof that all these people had a common origin and that their early forefathers shared that Flood experience in common.
These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, p. 319) states: “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 . . . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”—Edited by G. Bromiley, 1982.
In times past, certain primitive people (in Australia, Egypt, Fiji, Society Islands, Peru, Mexico, and other places) preserved a possible remnant of these traditions about the Flood by observing in November a ‘Feast of Ancestors’ or a ‘Festival of the Dead.’ Such customs reflected a memory of the destruction caused by the Deluge. According to the book Life and Work at the Great Pyramid, the festival in Mexico was held on the 17th of November because they “had a tradition that at that time the world had been previously destroyed; and they dreaded lest a similar catastrophe would, at the end of a cycle, annihilate the human race.” (By Professor C. Piazzi Smyth, Edinburgh, 1867, Vol. II, pp. 390, 391) Notes the book The Worship of the Dead: “This festival [of the dead] is . . . held by all on or about the very day on which, according to the Mosaic account, the Deluge took place, viz., the seventeenth day of the second month—the month nearly corresponding with our November.” (By J. Garnier, London, 1904, p. 4) Interestingly, the Bible reports that the Flood began “in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month.” (Ge 7:11) That “second month” corresponds to the latter part of October and the first part of November on our calendar.
QUOTE (PhilP+Oct 16 2006, 01:29 PM)
Just wanted to include under the "magic" bit the Indian rope trick where they climb an unsupported rope and disappear into the sky. Yes, that is actually done. It is no trick.
Your worldview accepts that Hindi magicians can actually 'climb an unsupported rope and disappear into the sky'? Have you ever seen it done? Have you ever been the person in the crowd confirming that the trick is 'authentic'?
Or do you just believe it to be true?
Does their magic have to be 'true' in order for your beliefs to be 'true'?
Your worldview accepts that Hindi magicians can actually 'climb an unsupported rope and disappear into the sky'? Have you ever seen it done? Have you ever been the person in the crowd confirming that the trick is 'authentic'?
Or do you just believe it to be true?
Does their magic have to be 'true' in order for your beliefs to be 'true'?
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
I know this will seem like blasphemy to some, but I'm attempting to present the idea of needed paths towards reconciliation, and no one should ever condemn another for lack of understanding, regardless of the beliefs any hold dear to themselves. We're all in this together, we've been trying for a long time, and we have a long time to go. The wars today are an example of the effects of the humanity we all believe in; the peace we all desire deep down is an example of the effects of the Spirit we want to believe in. Although I feel rage at the vile actions of this government and other seats of power, I also believe Spirit can prevail against it when there is enough belief to allow it to work. But it can't unless we incorporate it, which requires correct, thus true belief in it. It's our free will, one way or another. (all imho)
soundhertz: What a problem when "government" claims(falsely) to be "led by the Spirit" and multitudes of gullible, professing Christians believe them because they are void of the Spirit themselves. Although the following article is just hearsay at this point, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turns out to be true.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/ex-ai...016095809990001
Updated: 01:53 PM EDT
Ex-Aide Says Evangelicals Mocked in White House
By Jake Tapper and Kendall Evans, ABCNews.com
(Oct. 16) - For the White House, the charges coming their way this morning in the new book "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction" must seem anything but heaven-sent.
The accusations are coming from an unlikely source: David Kuo, former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, which channels federal dollars to religious charities.
Kuo says the office was misused to rally evangelical Christians, the Republican base voters, to get GOP politicians elected. Not only that, Kuo claims Bush officials mocked evangelical leaders behind their backs, alleging that in the office of political guru Karl Rove they were called "the nuts."
"National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous', 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy,' " Kuo writes.
"You name the important Christian leader, and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places," Kuo told "60 Minutes" Sunday night.
That mockery, he added, included the Rev. Pat Robertson being called "insane," the Rev. Jerry Falwell being called "ridiculous" and comments that Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family "had to be controlled."
James Towey, Kuo's former boss in the faith-based initiative office, suggested Kuo is bearing false witness.
What the book seems to be "describing is kind of a personal animus against evangelicals and a kind of personal insulting behavior," Towey said. "President Bush would never have tolerated that, and I never saw it in four and a half years."
Towey allowed that "perhaps junior staffers and interns" may have made such a comment.
"Maybe David heard something, I don't know," he said. "You might hear a comment from a staff person, when they saw a religious leader, say something about Islam -- or something after Katrina where you would kind of have your eyebrows raised saying, 'Why would they say such a thing?' "
But at high-levels, his insisted, with "decision-makers in the White House and the president, there was respect for the evangelical leadership and for the other faith leaders with whom the president met. … People like Chuck Colson and Rick Warren and Dr. Dobson, they're friends of the White House. We may not always agree with them, but, uh, there was a real mutual respect."
Kuo also claims the White House used the taxpayer-funded Office of Faith-Based Initiatives to hold events designed to rally the evangelical conservative GOP members in 20 targeted races in 2002.
Kuo says Ken Mehlman -- then the political director of the White House, now the chairman of the Republican National Committee -- embraced the idea, though he wanted to make sure such events didn't seem to originate from campaigns. Kuo told "60 Minutes" that Mehlman was "thrilled."
"He just whipped off a bunch a names of particular races and said, 'We need to go there, there, there, there and there,'" Kuo said. In his book, Kuo writes that Mehlman said, "It needs to come from the congressional offices" so it didn't look too political.
"We'll take care of that by having our guys call the office to request the visit," Mehlman said, according to Kuo's book.
Kuo says Republicans won 19 out of those 20 races, and he credits Preasident Bush's victory in the key swing state of Ohio that year "to the conferences we had launched two years before."
It was "spiritually wrong," Kuo told "60 Minutes." "You're taking the sacred and you're making it profane. You're taking Jesus and reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy."
Mehlman could not be reached for comment, but Towey, who left the White House to become president of St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa., said it is not a fair portrayal of history.
"Over four years, we visited more Democrat districts than we did Republican ones," Towey said, adding that he met with two Senate Democrats -- then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana -- in the midst of tough races in 2002.
"Everyone was trying to make some political hay or find some political benefit from the faith-based initiative," he added. "But my job was to keep the focus on the poor. And the president made it clear to me that I was to stay away from the politics, and we did. I met with more Democrat senators than I did with Republican congressman in 2002."
Asked about the book, White House press secretary Tony Snow said Friday that he asked Rove about Kuo's charges and, "Karl made the same point I did, which is, 'These are my friends: I don't talk about them like that.' "
Snow also took issue with Kuo's charge that the Office of Faith Based Initiatives was used for partisan political purposes.
"The president has been really clear: 'This is not to be used for politics. This is to be used for compassion,' " he said.
Kuo left the White House in late 2003 after a brain tumor and subsequent seizure caused him to have a serious car accident. He writes that his brush with death caused him to re-evaluate his priorities and realize that core Christian values have been severely compromised by allying with the GOP. The reason for this? Kuo writes: "Every politician needs evangelicals. And like a teenage boy on a date with a beautiful girl, they will say anything and everything to get what they want."
Kuo's solution is to tell Republicans, "We are fasting from politics for a season."
He proposes a two-year fast from politics -- not including voting -- and urges Christians to instead direct their energies toward practicing compassion and their money towards charity.
"We need to spend more time studying Jesus, and less time trying to get people elected," Kuo writes.
Kuo told "60 Minutes" that the "message that has been sent out to Christians for a long time now that Jesus came primarily for a political agenda, and recently primarily a right-wing political agenda -- as if this culture war is a war for God. And it's not a war for God, it's a war for politics. And that's a huge difference."
He said he wrote the book because he had "this burden on my heart that … the name of God is being destroyed in the name of politics."
He said "of course" the White House would attack him, perhaps by saying, "He's really a liberal," or, "Oh, maybe that brain tumor really messed up his head."
Kuo is not the first official from the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives to question the sincerity of the White House officials regarding the program, and to accuse them of being overly political. In a MEMO to journalist Ron Suskind in October 2002, the first director of that office, John DiIulio, wrote that the White House was more interested in writing a bill that would never pass the Senate but could be used for political purposes.
"[T]hey basically rejected any idea that the president's best political interests -- not to mention the best policy for the country -- could be served by letting centrist Senate Democrats in on the issue. … They winked at the most far-right House Republicans who, in turn, drafted a so-called faith bill (H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act) that (or so they thought) satisfied certain fundamentalist leaders and beltway libertarians but bore few marks of 'compassionate conservatism' and was, as anybody could tell, an absolute political non-starter. It could pass the House only on a virtual party-line vote, and it could never pass the Senate.
"Not only that," DiIulio continued, "but it reflected neither the president's own previous rhetoric on the idea, nor any of the actual empirical evidence that recommended policies promoting greater public/private partnerships involving community-serving religious organizations. I said so, wrote memos, and so on for the first six weeks. But, hey, what's that fat, out-of-the-loop professor guy know; besides, he says he'll be gone in six months. As one senior staff member chided me at a meeting at which many junior staff were present and all ears, 'John, get a faith bill, any faith bill.' "
Kuo recounts similar anecdotes in his book, with various officials asking him to prepare anything faith-related for public consumption, with little apparent concern for the substance of the matter, in Kuo's recounting of events.
Upon leaving the White House, Kuo wrote President Bush a nice farewell letter, which both Snow and Towey -- who succeeded DiIulio -- referenced in order to challenge his credibility.
"When he left the White House, he had very nice things to say about the president and his compassion and his perseverance, and also about the fellows on the White House staff," Towey said. "He said that we work with integrity and honesty and that's all written. And now you hear charges that are based on impressions and things like that. I'm puzzled by it."
Said Towey, "It's between the author and God on why he's saying what he's saying."
One matter seems certain among all this back-and-forth: With just over three weeks until Election Day, the White House would rather not be discussing whether any officials there ever called evangelical leaders "nuts."
Chris Strathmann, Quiana C. Burns and Philip Wood contributed to this report.
Even if this is just hearsay, Bush and his cronies are ABSOLUTELY NOT representative of Christianity or Christ. They are one horn(king) of the two-horned "beast"(kingdom) of Revelation 13:11 that looks "like a lamb"(pretends to be Christian) and "speaks as a dragon"(is really Satanic). The other "horn"(king) is over in Great Britain. Take care.
EDIT: I am BY NO MEANS defending Robertson, Falwell, Joyner, Dobson, etc. BY NO MEANS.
soundhertz: What a problem when "government" claims(falsely) to be "led by the Spirit" and multitudes of gullible, professing Christians believe them because they are void of the Spirit themselves. Although the following article is just hearsay at this point, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turns out to be true.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/ex-ai...016095809990001
Updated: 01:53 PM EDT
Ex-Aide Says Evangelicals Mocked in White House
By Jake Tapper and Kendall Evans, ABCNews.com
(Oct. 16) - For the White House, the charges coming their way this morning in the new book "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction" must seem anything but heaven-sent.
The accusations are coming from an unlikely source: David Kuo, former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, which channels federal dollars to religious charities.
Kuo says the office was misused to rally evangelical Christians, the Republican base voters, to get GOP politicians elected. Not only that, Kuo claims Bush officials mocked evangelical leaders behind their backs, alleging that in the office of political guru Karl Rove they were called "the nuts."
"National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous', 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy,' " Kuo writes.
"You name the important Christian leader, and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places," Kuo told "60 Minutes" Sunday night.
That mockery, he added, included the Rev. Pat Robertson being called "insane," the Rev. Jerry Falwell being called "ridiculous" and comments that Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family "had to be controlled."
James Towey, Kuo's former boss in the faith-based initiative office, suggested Kuo is bearing false witness.
What the book seems to be "describing is kind of a personal animus against evangelicals and a kind of personal insulting behavior," Towey said. "President Bush would never have tolerated that, and I never saw it in four and a half years."
Towey allowed that "perhaps junior staffers and interns" may have made such a comment.
"Maybe David heard something, I don't know," he said. "You might hear a comment from a staff person, when they saw a religious leader, say something about Islam -- or something after Katrina where you would kind of have your eyebrows raised saying, 'Why would they say such a thing?' "
But at high-levels, his insisted, with "decision-makers in the White House and the president, there was respect for the evangelical leadership and for the other faith leaders with whom the president met. … People like Chuck Colson and Rick Warren and Dr. Dobson, they're friends of the White House. We may not always agree with them, but, uh, there was a real mutual respect."
Kuo also claims the White House used the taxpayer-funded Office of Faith-Based Initiatives to hold events designed to rally the evangelical conservative GOP members in 20 targeted races in 2002.
Kuo says Ken Mehlman -- then the political director of the White House, now the chairman of the Republican National Committee -- embraced the idea, though he wanted to make sure such events didn't seem to originate from campaigns. Kuo told "60 Minutes" that Mehlman was "thrilled."
"He just whipped off a bunch a names of particular races and said, 'We need to go there, there, there, there and there,'" Kuo said. In his book, Kuo writes that Mehlman said, "It needs to come from the congressional offices" so it didn't look too political.
"We'll take care of that by having our guys call the office to request the visit," Mehlman said, according to Kuo's book.
Kuo says Republicans won 19 out of those 20 races, and he credits Preasident Bush's victory in the key swing state of Ohio that year "to the conferences we had launched two years before."
It was "spiritually wrong," Kuo told "60 Minutes." "You're taking the sacred and you're making it profane. You're taking Jesus and reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy."
Mehlman could not be reached for comment, but Towey, who left the White House to become president of St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa., said it is not a fair portrayal of history.
"Over four years, we visited more Democrat districts than we did Republican ones," Towey said, adding that he met with two Senate Democrats -- then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana -- in the midst of tough races in 2002.
"Everyone was trying to make some political hay or find some political benefit from the faith-based initiative," he added. "But my job was to keep the focus on the poor. And the president made it clear to me that I was to stay away from the politics, and we did. I met with more Democrat senators than I did with Republican congressman in 2002."
Asked about the book, White House press secretary Tony Snow said Friday that he asked Rove about Kuo's charges and, "Karl made the same point I did, which is, 'These are my friends: I don't talk about them like that.' "
Snow also took issue with Kuo's charge that the Office of Faith Based Initiatives was used for partisan political purposes.
"The president has been really clear: 'This is not to be used for politics. This is to be used for compassion,' " he said.
Kuo left the White House in late 2003 after a brain tumor and subsequent seizure caused him to have a serious car accident. He writes that his brush with death caused him to re-evaluate his priorities and realize that core Christian values have been severely compromised by allying with the GOP. The reason for this? Kuo writes: "Every politician needs evangelicals. And like a teenage boy on a date with a beautiful girl, they will say anything and everything to get what they want."
Kuo's solution is to tell Republicans, "We are fasting from politics for a season."
He proposes a two-year fast from politics -- not including voting -- and urges Christians to instead direct their energies toward practicing compassion and their money towards charity.
"We need to spend more time studying Jesus, and less time trying to get people elected," Kuo writes.
Kuo told "60 Minutes" that the "message that has been sent out to Christians for a long time now that Jesus came primarily for a political agenda, and recently primarily a right-wing political agenda -- as if this culture war is a war for God. And it's not a war for God, it's a war for politics. And that's a huge difference."
He said he wrote the book because he had "this burden on my heart that … the name of God is being destroyed in the name of politics."
He said "of course" the White House would attack him, perhaps by saying, "He's really a liberal," or, "Oh, maybe that brain tumor really messed up his head."
Kuo is not the first official from the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives to question the sincerity of the White House officials regarding the program, and to accuse them of being overly political. In a MEMO to journalist Ron Suskind in October 2002, the first director of that office, John DiIulio, wrote that the White House was more interested in writing a bill that would never pass the Senate but could be used for political purposes.
"[T]hey basically rejected any idea that the president's best political interests -- not to mention the best policy for the country -- could be served by letting centrist Senate Democrats in on the issue. … They winked at the most far-right House Republicans who, in turn, drafted a so-called faith bill (H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act) that (or so they thought) satisfied certain fundamentalist leaders and beltway libertarians but bore few marks of 'compassionate conservatism' and was, as anybody could tell, an absolute political non-starter. It could pass the House only on a virtual party-line vote, and it could never pass the Senate.
"Not only that," DiIulio continued, "but it reflected neither the president's own previous rhetoric on the idea, nor any of the actual empirical evidence that recommended policies promoting greater public/private partnerships involving community-serving religious organizations. I said so, wrote memos, and so on for the first six weeks. But, hey, what's that fat, out-of-the-loop professor guy know; besides, he says he'll be gone in six months. As one senior staff member chided me at a meeting at which many junior staff were present and all ears, 'John, get a faith bill, any faith bill.' "
Kuo recounts similar anecdotes in his book, with various officials asking him to prepare anything faith-related for public consumption, with little apparent concern for the substance of the matter, in Kuo's recounting of events.
Upon leaving the White House, Kuo wrote President Bush a nice farewell letter, which both Snow and Towey -- who succeeded DiIulio -- referenced in order to challenge his credibility.
"When he left the White House, he had very nice things to say about the president and his compassion and his perseverance, and also about the fellows on the White House staff," Towey said. "He said that we work with integrity and honesty and that's all written. And now you hear charges that are based on impressions and things like that. I'm puzzled by it."
Said Towey, "It's between the author and God on why he's saying what he's saying."
One matter seems certain among all this back-and-forth: With just over three weeks until Election Day, the White House would rather not be discussing whether any officials there ever called evangelical leaders "nuts."
Chris Strathmann, Quiana C. Burns and Philip Wood contributed to this report.
Even if this is just hearsay, Bush and his cronies are ABSOLUTELY NOT representative of Christianity or Christ. They are one horn(king) of the two-horned "beast"(kingdom) of Revelation 13:11 that looks "like a lamb"(pretends to be Christian) and "speaks as a dragon"(is really Satanic). The other "horn"(king) is over in Great Britain. Take care.
EDIT: I am BY NO MEANS defending Robertson, Falwell, Joyner, Dobson, etc. BY NO MEANS.
QUOTE
When did God "apologize" for the flood?
Gen. 8:22. This is when God said that He wouldn't ever again curse (or blame) the ground (world) for man's evil, since the evil is already with him, not the world. Obviously ancient phrases translated ever and anon lose absolute fidelity. It can't be helped. Every Bible I have prints this and endless other passages differently. Whenever there is conflicting or controversial statements credited to God or Christ, we should blame it on our mistranslations rather than invert or corrupt the teachings in order to explain the passages. Writings and perceptions are corruptible, a perfect being is not. As such neither the Bible nor the Cabbalah, Bhagavad-Gita, Qur'an exist in purity. But the crux, the focal point of the teachings of all of them are in alignment. This is a far more important conclusion than throwing any of them out because of some human-caused discrepancies between each other or within themselves.
I see these Books as a chronology of the slow awakening of the world to the Spirit. There is much controversy in these written chronologies, but there is great clarity too, for those who truly seek wisdom. This is true for all treatises on Deity and Deity's relationship to us. I do not hold that there is one special Book of God. Humans want themselves and their beliefs to be 'special'; that creates conflict and dissention which rails against the unity that is our heritage, both evolutionary and spiritual. In fact humans don't even need a book to discover their spirituality; God is not limited to a book. Spirit is experienced in the loving benevolence towards one's neighbors. It is sought by doing this. Actions, not words. Real belief in a God demands LIVING as such, to the best of one's abilities, each and every day. One can find Spirit without ever having been familiar with a book. It's the religious indoctrination that weakens so many into the view that THEY are special in the eyes of God/Jehovah/Allah and that their way is the only way. And also creates such disdain towards each other, opposite to the teachings that were never meant for some, but always for all. (imho)
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
But the crux, the focal point of the teachings of all of them are in alignment. This is a far more important conclusion than throwing any of them out because of some human-caused discrepancies between each other or within themselves.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cross
Main Entry: 1cross
Pronunciation: 'kros
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Old Norse or Old Irish; Old Norse kross, from Old Irish cros, from Latin cruc-, crux
1 a : a structure consisting of an upright with a transverse beam used especially by the ancient Romans for execution b often capitalized : the cross on which Jesus was crucified
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/crucifix
crucifix
One entry found for crucifix.
Main Entry: cru·ci·fix
Pronunciation: 'krü-s&-"fiks
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin crucifixus the crucified Christ, from crucifixus, past participle of crucifigere to crucify, from Latin cruc-, crux + figere to fasten -- more at FIX
: a representation of Christ on the cross
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/crucial
crucial
One entry found for crucial.
Main Entry: cru·cial
Pronunciation: 'krü-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Latin cruc-, crux cross
1 archaic : CRUCIFORM
2 a : important or essential as resolving a crisis : DECISIVE <a crucial step> b : marked by final determination of a doubtful issue <the crucial game of a series> c : IMPORTANT, SIGNIFICANT <what use we make of them will be the crucial question -- Stanley Kubrick>
synonym see ACUTE
soundhertz: The "crux" or "crucial" point of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was "crucified" on a "cross" for the sin of the world. Those who turn to Him for the salvation of their soul can find remission of their sins based upon the atonement of Christ on their behalf and the "new birth" that follows. So, "NO", the focal point of all religions is NOT in alignment at all. Man's own attempts at redemption fall short in the eyes of a Holy God. Only the spotless Lamb of God can atone for sin in the eyes of the Christian God. Additionally, any true Christian will NOT "disdain" others...they will grieve for the lost and lay their life down for them, if need be. Take care.
P.S. Sorry to give such a curt response, but I'm extremely strapped for time at the moment.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cross
Main Entry: 1cross
Pronunciation: 'kros
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Old Norse or Old Irish; Old Norse kross, from Old Irish cros, from Latin cruc-, crux
1 a : a structure consisting of an upright with a transverse beam used especially by the ancient Romans for execution b often capitalized : the cross on which Jesus was crucified
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/crucifix
crucifix
One entry found for crucifix.
Main Entry: cru·ci·fix
Pronunciation: 'krü-s&-"fiks
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin crucifixus the crucified Christ, from crucifixus, past participle of crucifigere to crucify, from Latin cruc-, crux + figere to fasten -- more at FIX
: a representation of Christ on the cross
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/crucial
crucial
One entry found for crucial.
Main Entry: cru·cial
Pronunciation: 'krü-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Latin cruc-, crux cross
1 archaic : CRUCIFORM
2 a : important or essential as resolving a crisis : DECISIVE <a crucial step> b : marked by final determination of a doubtful issue <the crucial game of a series> c : IMPORTANT, SIGNIFICANT <what use we make of them will be the crucial question -- Stanley Kubrick>
synonym see ACUTE
soundhertz: The "crux" or "crucial" point of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was "crucified" on a "cross" for the sin of the world. Those who turn to Him for the salvation of their soul can find remission of their sins based upon the atonement of Christ on their behalf and the "new birth" that follows. So, "NO", the focal point of all religions is NOT in alignment at all. Man's own attempts at redemption fall short in the eyes of a Holy God. Only the spotless Lamb of God can atone for sin in the eyes of the Christian God. Additionally, any true Christian will NOT "disdain" others...they will grieve for the lost and lay their life down for them, if need be. Take care.
P.S. Sorry to give such a curt response, but I'm extremely strapped for time at the moment.
Soundhertz:
"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
The Bible itself claims to be the inspired Word of God, and thus too it all harmonizes together, not being possible if only invented by men. He also is able to preserve the text faithfully, which he has done for 1000s of years, despite many attempts of the clergy and other opposers to wipe it out of existence.
Since it has been translated in whole or in part in over 1700 languages today, naturally different translations will have variations in phrasing from English. In English we have the old English, modernised loose or paraphrased renderings, as well as literal translations, such as our own New World Translation. We used the King James prior to that. The meaning conveyed is remarkably similar in most all versions. The main problems with the KJ being that old English is not in common usage today, and word meanings are often not understood or misunderstood. Texts such as "suffer the little children come unto me" have caused some to wrongfully conclude that Jesus decreed little children must suffer. The fact that many do is not supporting evidence either. In old English the word "suffer" meant "let". Jesus' apostles tried to prevent the children from approaching him, and he indignantly responded by telling them to let the children come to him, as the Kingdom belonged to suchlike (humble and teachable) ones.
I must also say that the focal point of all religions are not the same. There are 1000s of gods. Some religions have 1000s of gods. Jehovah God the Creator is one God, and detests false worship in all forms. We can never obey his requirements properly if we haven't learnt accurately what they are.
"However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively."
(2 Peter 2:1,2)
So God is certainly not pleased by false worship, along with it's unrighteous fruitage. I do agree with you that men have deviated from ways of truth. It's not God who has changed, and he has no need to change; all his ways being perfect. Knowing the future intimately also enabled his Word to provide practical knowledge and wisdom even for today. As you say too, at times the Bible text has been altered to lend support to manmade false doctrines, besides the general omission of God's personal name, Jehovah. How translators would dare make such deliberate misleading changes is bewildering, but also leaves them accountable to the judgment of Revelation directed to any who would vary the Scriptures.
Also the Bible is widely misunderstood, and misapplied. However, with careful attention to context and comparison with other passages, most things can be ascertained and reasoned out accurately. At least with proper guidance and research. Yes, God is more than just writings in a book. But this book has enabled our whole Organization to exist and thrive with his backing, and also being practical, is our whole guide to living, as well as providing the basis for our solid hope for the future. It doesn't tell us everything we'd like to know, but everything we need to know at this time is there specifically or in principle.
I hope this has helped in regard to your comments.
QUOTE
Obviously ancient phrases translated ever and anon lose absolute fidelity. It can't be helped. Every Bible I have prints this and endless other passages differently. Whenever there is conflicting or controversial statements credited to God or Christ, we should blame it on our mistranslations rather than invert or corrupt the teachings in order to explain the passages. Writings and perceptions are corruptible, a perfect being is not. As such neither the Bible nor the Cabbalah, Bhagavad-Gita, Qur'an exist in purity. But the crux, the focal point of the teachings of all of them are in alignment. This is a far more important conclusion than throwing any of them out because of some human-caused discrepancies between each other or within themselves.
"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
The Bible itself claims to be the inspired Word of God, and thus too it all harmonizes together, not being possible if only invented by men. He also is able to preserve the text faithfully, which he has done for 1000s of years, despite many attempts of the clergy and other opposers to wipe it out of existence.
Since it has been translated in whole or in part in over 1700 languages today, naturally different translations will have variations in phrasing from English. In English we have the old English, modernised loose or paraphrased renderings, as well as literal translations, such as our own New World Translation. We used the King James prior to that. The meaning conveyed is remarkably similar in most all versions. The main problems with the KJ being that old English is not in common usage today, and word meanings are often not understood or misunderstood. Texts such as "suffer the little children come unto me" have caused some to wrongfully conclude that Jesus decreed little children must suffer. The fact that many do is not supporting evidence either. In old English the word "suffer" meant "let". Jesus' apostles tried to prevent the children from approaching him, and he indignantly responded by telling them to let the children come to him, as the Kingdom belonged to suchlike (humble and teachable) ones.
I must also say that the focal point of all religions are not the same. There are 1000s of gods. Some religions have 1000s of gods. Jehovah God the Creator is one God, and detests false worship in all forms. We can never obey his requirements properly if we haven't learnt accurately what they are.
"However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively."
(2 Peter 2:1,2)
So God is certainly not pleased by false worship, along with it's unrighteous fruitage. I do agree with you that men have deviated from ways of truth. It's not God who has changed, and he has no need to change; all his ways being perfect. Knowing the future intimately also enabled his Word to provide practical knowledge and wisdom even for today. As you say too, at times the Bible text has been altered to lend support to manmade false doctrines, besides the general omission of God's personal name, Jehovah. How translators would dare make such deliberate misleading changes is bewildering, but also leaves them accountable to the judgment of Revelation directed to any who would vary the Scriptures.
Also the Bible is widely misunderstood, and misapplied. However, with careful attention to context and comparison with other passages, most things can be ascertained and reasoned out accurately. At least with proper guidance and research. Yes, God is more than just writings in a book. But this book has enabled our whole Organization to exist and thrive with his backing, and also being practical, is our whole guide to living, as well as providing the basis for our solid hope for the future. It doesn't tell us everything we'd like to know, but everything we need to know at this time is there specifically or in principle.
I hope this has helped in regard to your comments.
QUOTE (PhilP+Oct 17 2006, 03:00 PM)
"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
I don't need to refute this statement to disbelieve the Bible. There is no evidence that Paul (or Timothy) was referring to the KJV, NIV, etc. when they reference "Scripture" as being true.
There is no good reason to believe that the Bible you own is Scripture, other than that it claims to be, and contains that text. Remember, the Council of Nicea edited the Bible to include that claim. Hell, I could write my own version of the Bible, plop in the letter to (or from) Timothy, and claim it to be Scripture. Doesn't make it true.
The claim might be true (that Scripture is true), I don't care, there is no reason to think that the Bible is Scripture.
Here's another way of putting it. If Jesus said "every Good Work is good" (He likely didn't, but it doesn't matter), that means something. If I read that statement, change my name to Mr. Good Work ... it doesn't make me good.
I don't need to refute this statement to disbelieve the Bible. There is no evidence that Paul (or Timothy) was referring to the KJV, NIV, etc. when they reference "Scripture" as being true.
There is no good reason to believe that the Bible you own is Scripture, other than that it claims to be, and contains that text. Remember, the Council of Nicea edited the Bible to include that claim. Hell, I could write my own version of the Bible, plop in the letter to (or from) Timothy, and claim it to be Scripture. Doesn't make it true.
The claim might be true (that Scripture is true), I don't care, there is no reason to think that the Bible is Scripture.
Here's another way of putting it. If Jesus said "every Good Work is good" (He likely didn't, but it doesn't matter), that means something. If I read that statement, change my name to Mr. Good Work ... it doesn't make me good.
It's always been the same problem. Look at all these threads on this forum (Creation/Evolution). What is really being said in these debates? "Stop believing in what you believe in because what I believe in is correct, not what you believe in." That is not only true of the dichotomy between Deist/Atheist. If it wasn't true there would only be ONE Christian religion. Divine revelation did not create dissention within the faithful, man's ego did. I live 5 miles away from a chapel who do not align themselves with Catholics, Episcopals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, or any others. They believe in the Bible, that Jesus established the Atonement through His death on the cross, that Satan is singular alive and always on the go, that renouncing Satan and accepting that Jesus is the one, true personal Savior is the only way to be born again, that only by being born again can Heaven be reached. And they believe also that many other Christian denominations are 'of the devil' even though followers of these denominations believe the same. And you can't tell this little parish that they are wrong; they lean on God and proclaim their fidelity to Scripture and remain unthreatened and sure that other denominations are of the devil. The same is true between Sunnis and Shi'ites. 99% of what they believe is exact. They use the same written Scripture. But that one percent difference is sufficient criteria for massive and forced tortuous deaths unending.
What kind of a God is deduced from these actions of His children, because they are ALL his children, unless God Jehovah Allah and Buddah each create their own children, which have no choice but to war since there can be "only one God".
Who is right?
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
***************************
non-Catholic denominations:
Eastern Orthodox Church (38 denominations)
***************************
Assyrian Orthodoxy (founded by ST. Thomas) (2 denominations)
***************************
Oriental Orthodoxy (6 denominations)
***************************
Anglican / Episcopal Church (57 denominations)
***************************
Protestantism (pre-Luther) (7 denominations)
***************************
Lutheran (100 denominations)
***************************
Presbyterian (Calvinist) (38 denominations)
***************************
Reformed / Congregationalist Churches (32 denominations)
***************************
Anabaptists (23 denominations)
***************************
Methodists (100+ denominations)
***************************
Pietists and Holiness Churches (13 denominations)
***************************
Baptists (150+ denominations)
***************************
Brethren (17 denominations)
***************************
Apostolic Churches - Irvingites (3 denominations)
***************************
Pentecostalism (65 denominations)
***************************
Oneness Pentecostalism (13 denominations)
***************************
Charismatics (18 denominations)
***************************
United and uniting churches (14 denominations)
***************************
Other Protestant Denominations (19 denominations) This is the grouping that includes the Schwenkfelders, apparently existing only in my immediate area. I know many.
***************************
(Quakers) (4 denominations)
***************************
Messianic Judaism (6 denominations)
***************************
Restorationism (14 denominations + many individual churches, including the one I mentioned earlier)
***************************
Millerites and Comparable groups (78 denominations, including the infamous Branch-Davidians)
***************************
Russellite Groups (14 denominations, including Jehovah Witnesses)
***************************
Anglo-Israelism (18 denominations)
***************************
Nontrinitarian Christianity (14 denominations)
***************************
Unitarianism and Universalism (31 denominations)
***************************
THIS IS BY NO MEANS A COMPLETE LIST.
I've taken this time to underscore my point that if there is only one God, His children are much confused as to who is being saved and who is being condemned to hell for all eternity. But they all think their faith is the right one, and the only one. And they all think that only they are special to their Father. And so, newguy and PhilP, how many of these devout followers of their Father will be put not to death but to an eternal hell of burning horror by their Father whom they worshipped but apparently not correctly?
In my most foul mood I could not could not sentence a child of mine to hell for even one day because they MADE AN ERROR. But I guess we have to allow for this unmitigated fury to being one of the 'Mysteries of God". In which case Heaven will remain rather empty while hell is bursting at the seams, with a contented God looking on for ALL ETERNITY.
If I sound condescending, trust me it's nowhere close to how aggressive I was years ago with my Catholic superiors in discussing this subject. There is absolutely no bad vibe intended towards you, just towards the view. It's real simple: I DO NOT BELIEVE that the Christ was relegated to Jesus only. Christ was not His last name, as I'm sure you know. And even with that, Christians believe other Christians are condemned even though they accept Jesus, but apparently in error. It's not being BORN IN JESUS that gets one to heaven. It's being BORN IN CHRIST. Christ IS the Atonement, and it is meant for all. Even for a Pope who doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut and effectively condemns his loyal followers in Iraq to abuse and beheadings:
"Iraq's Christians flee as extremist threat worsens" - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/world/mi....html?th&emc=th
What kind of a God is deduced from these actions of His children, because they are ALL his children, unless God Jehovah Allah and Buddah each create their own children, which have no choice but to war since there can be "only one God".
Who is right?
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
***************************
non-Catholic denominations:
Eastern Orthodox Church (38 denominations)
***************************
Assyrian Orthodoxy (founded by ST. Thomas) (2 denominations)
***************************
Oriental Orthodoxy (6 denominations)
***************************
Anglican / Episcopal Church (57 denominations)
***************************
Protestantism (pre-Luther) (7 denominations)
***************************
Lutheran (100 denominations)
***************************
Presbyterian (Calvinist) (38 denominations)
***************************
Reformed / Congregationalist Churches (32 denominations)
***************************
Anabaptists (23 denominations)
***************************
Methodists (100+ denominations)
***************************
Pietists and Holiness Churches (13 denominations)
***************************
Baptists (150+ denominations)
***************************
Brethren (17 denominations)
***************************
Apostolic Churches - Irvingites (3 denominations)
***************************
Pentecostalism (65 denominations)
***************************
Oneness Pentecostalism (13 denominations)
***************************
Charismatics (18 denominations)
***************************
United and uniting churches (14 denominations)
***************************
Other Protestant Denominations (19 denominations) This is the grouping that includes the Schwenkfelders, apparently existing only in my immediate area. I know many.
***************************
(Quakers) (4 denominations)
***************************
Messianic Judaism (6 denominations)
***************************
Restorationism (14 denominations + many individual churches, including the one I mentioned earlier)
***************************
Millerites and Comparable groups (78 denominations, including the infamous Branch-Davidians)
***************************
Russellite Groups (14 denominations, including Jehovah Witnesses)
***************************
Anglo-Israelism (18 denominations)
***************************
Nontrinitarian Christianity (14 denominations)
***************************
Unitarianism and Universalism (31 denominations)
***************************
THIS IS BY NO MEANS A COMPLETE LIST.
I've taken this time to underscore my point that if there is only one God, His children are much confused as to who is being saved and who is being condemned to hell for all eternity. But they all think their faith is the right one, and the only one. And they all think that only they are special to their Father. And so, newguy and PhilP, how many of these devout followers of their Father will be put not to death but to an eternal hell of burning horror by their Father whom they worshipped but apparently not correctly?
In my most foul mood I could not could not sentence a child of mine to hell for even one day because they MADE AN ERROR. But I guess we have to allow for this unmitigated fury to being one of the 'Mysteries of God". In which case Heaven will remain rather empty while hell is bursting at the seams, with a contented God looking on for ALL ETERNITY.
If I sound condescending, trust me it's nowhere close to how aggressive I was years ago with my Catholic superiors in discussing this subject. There is absolutely no bad vibe intended towards you, just towards the view. It's real simple: I DO NOT BELIEVE that the Christ was relegated to Jesus only. Christ was not His last name, as I'm sure you know. And even with that, Christians believe other Christians are condemned even though they accept Jesus, but apparently in error. It's not being BORN IN JESUS that gets one to heaven. It's being BORN IN CHRIST. Christ IS the Atonement, and it is meant for all. Even for a Pope who doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut and effectively condemns his loyal followers in Iraq to abuse and beheadings:
"Iraq's Christians flee as extremist threat worsens" - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/world/mi....html?th&emc=th
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
What kind of a God is deduced from these actions of His children, because they are ALL his children, unless God Jehovah Allah and Buddah each create their own children, which have no choice but to war since there can be "only one God".
Who is right?
"I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."(John 8:38-47)
soundhertz: That, as you're probably already aware, was a conversation between Jesus and some of the religious leaders of His day. They claimed that they were both children of Abraham and God, but Jesus called them children of the devil. You say that "we're ALL God's children". Jesus disagrees. You tell me:
Who is right?
Additionally, you state that you do not believe that THE CHRIST was relegated to Jesus alone. Upon what, might I ask, do you base this belief? You don't need to answer, of course, but I'm just curious.
As far as whose "beliefs" are right is concerned...
As I've stated on this forum in the past, it is NOT my responsibility to "prove" God's existence to any of you. That is God's responsibility. Out of a genuine concern for my fellow man, I have simply tried to address some false statements that are seemingly deliberately made by some to discredit Christ/Christianity. Who is getting "up in arms" that Christ/Christianity is deliberately being misrepresented? You? Others on this forum that you know? Don't you like to make your decisions based upon accurate information? I'm into TRUTH, wherever it is found. My desire is to represent Biblical Christianity in its true light. If people want to reject Christ/Christianity AFTER it is properly represented, then that is their prerogative. I'm certainly NOT here to coerce or force-feed anyone...just to hopefully make men/women think. Finally, for now, I'd like to ask you one question...please answer it sincerely:
Do I strike you as the type of individual that would ever resort to violence in the name of my God?
I trust that your answer is a resounding "NO!". If that is indeed the case, then I've properly represented Christ in that area. Would to God that the day would come on this forum when people stopped using "violence" as their trump card. Take care.
Who is right?
"I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."(John 8:38-47)
soundhertz: That, as you're probably already aware, was a conversation between Jesus and some of the religious leaders of His day. They claimed that they were both children of Abraham and God, but Jesus called them children of the devil. You say that "we're ALL God's children". Jesus disagrees. You tell me:
Who is right?
Additionally, you state that you do not believe that THE CHRIST was relegated to Jesus alone. Upon what, might I ask, do you base this belief? You don't need to answer, of course, but I'm just curious.
As far as whose "beliefs" are right is concerned...
As I've stated on this forum in the past, it is NOT my responsibility to "prove" God's existence to any of you. That is God's responsibility. Out of a genuine concern for my fellow man, I have simply tried to address some false statements that are seemingly deliberately made by some to discredit Christ/Christianity. Who is getting "up in arms" that Christ/Christianity is deliberately being misrepresented? You? Others on this forum that you know? Don't you like to make your decisions based upon accurate information? I'm into TRUTH, wherever it is found. My desire is to represent Biblical Christianity in its true light. If people want to reject Christ/Christianity AFTER it is properly represented, then that is their prerogative. I'm certainly NOT here to coerce or force-feed anyone...just to hopefully make men/women think. Finally, for now, I'd like to ask you one question...please answer it sincerely:
Do I strike you as the type of individual that would ever resort to violence in the name of my God?
I trust that your answer is a resounding "NO!". If that is indeed the case, then I've properly represented Christ in that area. Would to God that the day would come on this forum when people stopped using "violence" as their trump card. Take care.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Oct 17 2006, 07:50 PM)
It's always been the same problem. Look at all these threads on this forum (Creation/Evolution). What is really being said in these debates? "Stop believing in what you believe in because what I believe in is correct, not what you believe in." That is not only true of the dichotomy between Deist/Atheist. If it wasn't true there would only be ONE Christian religion. Divine revelation did not create dissention within the faithful, man's ego did.
You'll note that, over time, science forms a consensus. Over time, if given freedom, religions will fragment in their interpretations. The Christian church is an excellent example - over time, there will be fundamental disagreements on what is true and what is false. One person reads the Bible and interprets that homosexual behaviour is a sin; another person reads the same Bible and concludes that it's only sometimes a sin, etc. One person suspects that Hell is a temporary stage of existence, others think it's eternal.
Compare that with science. Science may fragment into more and more disciplines (genetics vs. astrophysics), but the total knowledge of reality builds and increases in acceptance. Way back when, people didn't know if the Earth was flat or not. Now, every disciple of science knows that the Earth is round and that Newtonian physics is merely an approximation of the way things work.
But the total "generally accepted" bank of knowledge builds over time. Sure, there will be some conflicts, but those conflicts will occur in areas that - earlier - didn't even have a testable answer. Given time, one correct view will rise as consensus.
You'll note that, over time, science forms a consensus. Over time, if given freedom, religions will fragment in their interpretations. The Christian church is an excellent example - over time, there will be fundamental disagreements on what is true and what is false. One person reads the Bible and interprets that homosexual behaviour is a sin; another person reads the same Bible and concludes that it's only sometimes a sin, etc. One person suspects that Hell is a temporary stage of existence, others think it's eternal.
Compare that with science. Science may fragment into more and more disciplines (genetics vs. astrophysics), but the total knowledge of reality builds and increases in acceptance. Way back when, people didn't know if the Earth was flat or not. Now, every disciple of science knows that the Earth is round and that Newtonian physics is merely an approximation of the way things work.
But the total "generally accepted" bank of knowledge builds over time. Sure, there will be some conflicts, but those conflicts will occur in areas that - earlier - didn't even have a testable answer. Given time, one correct view will rise as consensus.
QUOTE (El Machinae+)
You'll note that, over time, science forms a consensus. Over time, if given freedom, religions will fragment in their interpretations. The Christian church is an excellent example - over time, there will be fundamental disagreements on what is true and what is false.
El Machinae: And you're seeking to prove what? The accuracy of scripture? Jesus and the Apostles foretold of many "schisms" that would take place within professing Christendom, didn't they? Of course they did. "Schisms" can actually have a positive effect, if handled correctly.
"Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."(I Corinthians 11:17-19)
Did you read that? One purpose for "divisions" and "heresies" is so that "they which are approved may be made manifest among you". Do you have a problem with this? Will you be like some on this forum who don't want to discuss what the scriptures actually say and don't say? Will you join the ranks of those who keep declaring that Hitler was a Christian simply because he claimed to be one(for political gains...nothing new there) despite having no genuine "fruit"? Or will you take the stance of one of your predecessors who called me an "elitist" for declaring that not every who calls themself by the name of Christ is truly a Christian? You've proved nothing other than what the scriptures foretold. Why is "peer review" allowed in science, but not within Christendom? Seems like a double-standard to me. Take care.
El Machinae: And you're seeking to prove what? The accuracy of scripture? Jesus and the Apostles foretold of many "schisms" that would take place within professing Christendom, didn't they? Of course they did. "Schisms" can actually have a positive effect, if handled correctly.
"Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."(I Corinthians 11:17-19)
Did you read that? One purpose for "divisions" and "heresies" is so that "they which are approved may be made manifest among you". Do you have a problem with this? Will you be like some on this forum who don't want to discuss what the scriptures actually say and don't say? Will you join the ranks of those who keep declaring that Hitler was a Christian simply because he claimed to be one(for political gains...nothing new there) despite having no genuine "fruit"? Or will you take the stance of one of your predecessors who called me an "elitist" for declaring that not every who calls themself by the name of Christ is truly a Christian? You've proved nothing other than what the scriptures foretold. Why is "peer review" allowed in science, but not within Christendom? Seems like a double-standard to me. Take care.
Wow, I post a response, go to bed, and the next day I see all this activity. I'll actually try to read all the new comments and respond succinctly.
El Machinae:
I quoted that Scripture not as a Bible proof to unbelievers, but for those who do believe, but may wonder about the canonicity of various Bible books. The Apocrypha is included in the Catholic Douay Bible I believe, yet is not part of the Bible canon, and the writers did not claim divine inspiration.
Soundhertz said:
There will always be dissension and confusion in a world alienated from God. Everyone has their own opinion and ideas, and that's what makes life interesting. We should feel free to express ourselves also, but it should be put over in a respectful non-offensive way, and we ought to listen and respect others views also. Thus, assertion has a different effect than stating "personal opinion". As one already privileged to know the truth, I cannot offer it as my own opinion, as it is not; and if I had any different notions, it wouldn't be worth mentioning, as it would only be false conjecture. The things I tell you are only what I've learned in the correct way of truth. If you don't believe what I say, at least believe the Scriptures I quote, and make an honest evaluation of the relevancy.
Argument is expected in a public forum such as this. If only people treated one another respectfully as some do, a lot more could be accomplished. I see you have given matters a lot of thought and research, and I will try to acknowledge points accordingly. Try not to worry about it all. None of it matters in the long run. What is important is that truth exists, and it is up to each one of us to make a diligent search for it, for the sake of our future well-being, and everyone who cares about us. Jesus said you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (John 8:32) So if we humbly search for it, having a humble, teachable attitude, God will lead us to it. Sincere prayer in that regard would not go unrewarded. Sometimes only once is needed, sometimes more.
“Keep on asking, and it will be given YOU; keep on seeking, and YOU will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to YOU. For everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened." (Matthew 7:7,8)
There are so many religions and schisms because they are misled by the ruler of this world, Satan, and they follow his ways. They only exist temporarily by God's permission. If they choose to remain ignorant of Bible truth, they are free to remain in that blind condition until the destruction of all false religion, which fast approaches.
Jehovah's Witnesses have been spreading the Word of God's Kingdom for more than 100 years in modern times in obedience to Jesus' commands, to glorify God, offer life to others, and provide a warning of things to come shortly. This is done out of love and obedience to God, love for their fellow-men, and to save themselves from bloodguilt. All will have the opportunity to hear. "This good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth, for a witness to all nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14) Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones doing so, in over 230 lands. So it is fulfilling the prophecy, and the latter part of it will also without fail occur, when the day of Armageddon arrives.
El Machinae:
I quoted that Scripture not as a Bible proof to unbelievers, but for those who do believe, but may wonder about the canonicity of various Bible books. The Apocrypha is included in the Catholic Douay Bible I believe, yet is not part of the Bible canon, and the writers did not claim divine inspiration.
Soundhertz said:
QUOTE
It's always been the same problem. Look at all these threads on this forum (Creation/Evolution). What is really being said in these debates? "Stop believing in what you believe in because what I believe in is correct, not what you believe in." That is not only true of the dichotomy between Deist/Atheist. If it wasn't true there would only be ONE Christian religion. Divine revelation did not create dissention within the faithful, man's ego did.
There will always be dissension and confusion in a world alienated from God. Everyone has their own opinion and ideas, and that's what makes life interesting. We should feel free to express ourselves also, but it should be put over in a respectful non-offensive way, and we ought to listen and respect others views also. Thus, assertion has a different effect than stating "personal opinion". As one already privileged to know the truth, I cannot offer it as my own opinion, as it is not; and if I had any different notions, it wouldn't be worth mentioning, as it would only be false conjecture. The things I tell you are only what I've learned in the correct way of truth. If you don't believe what I say, at least believe the Scriptures I quote, and make an honest evaluation of the relevancy.
Argument is expected in a public forum such as this. If only people treated one another respectfully as some do, a lot more could be accomplished. I see you have given matters a lot of thought and research, and I will try to acknowledge points accordingly. Try not to worry about it all. None of it matters in the long run. What is important is that truth exists, and it is up to each one of us to make a diligent search for it, for the sake of our future well-being, and everyone who cares about us. Jesus said you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (John 8:32) So if we humbly search for it, having a humble, teachable attitude, God will lead us to it. Sincere prayer in that regard would not go unrewarded. Sometimes only once is needed, sometimes more.
“Keep on asking, and it will be given YOU; keep on seeking, and YOU will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to YOU. For everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened." (Matthew 7:7,8)
There are so many religions and schisms because they are misled by the ruler of this world, Satan, and they follow his ways. They only exist temporarily by God's permission. If they choose to remain ignorant of Bible truth, they are free to remain in that blind condition until the destruction of all false religion, which fast approaches.
Jehovah's Witnesses have been spreading the Word of God's Kingdom for more than 100 years in modern times in obedience to Jesus' commands, to glorify God, offer life to others, and provide a warning of things to come shortly. This is done out of love and obedience to God, love for their fellow-men, and to save themselves from bloodguilt. All will have the opportunity to hear. "This good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth, for a witness to all nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14) Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones doing so, in over 230 lands. So it is fulfilling the prophecy, and the latter part of it will also without fail occur, when the day of Armageddon arrives.
I offer the following information for the consideration of any honest-hearted ones, and that may include some current opposers, for your edification.
HOW TO IDENTIFY THE TRUE RELIGION
5 How can ‘the road to life’ be found? Jesus said that the true religion would be evident in the lives of the people who practice it. “By their fruits you will recognize them,” he said. “Every good tree produces fine fruit.” (Matthew 7:16, 17) In other words, those who practice the true religion would be recognized by their beliefs and their conduct. Although they are not perfect and they make mistakes, true worshipers as a group seek to do God’s will. Let us consider six features that identify those who practice true religion.
6 God’s servants base their teachings on the Bible. The Bible itself says: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man [or woman] of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) To his fellow Christians, the apostle Paul wrote: “When you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13) Hence, beliefs and practices of the true religion are not based on human views or tradition. They originate in God’s inspired Word, the Bible.
7 Jesus Christ set the proper example by basing his teachings on God’s Word. In prayer to his heavenly Father, he said: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) Jesus believed the Word of God, and everything he taught harmonized with the Scriptures. Jesus often said: “It is written.” (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10) Then Jesus would quote a scripture. Similarly, God’s people today do not teach their own ideas. They believe that the Bible is God’s Word, and they base their teachings firmly on what it says.
8 Those who practice the true religion worship only Jehovah and make his name known. Jesus declared: “It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Matthew 4:10) Thus, God’s servants worship no one other than Jehovah. This worship includes letting people know what the name of the true God is and what he is like. Psalm 83:18 states: “You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” Jesus set the pattern in helping others to get to know God, as he said in prayer: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world.” (John 17:6) Similarly, true worshipers today teach others about God’s name, his purposes, and his qualities.
9 God’s people show genuine, unselfish love for one another. Jesus said: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) The early Christians had such love for one another. Godly love overcomes racial, social, and national barriers and draws people together in an unbreakable bond of true brotherhood. (Colossians 3:14) Members of false religions do not have such a loving brotherhood. How do we know that? They kill one another because of national or ethnic differences. True Christians do not take up weapons to kill their Christian brothers or anyone else. The Bible states: “The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother. . . . We should have love for one another; not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother.”—1 John 3:10-12; 4:20, 21.
10 Of course, genuine love means more than not killing others. True Christians unselfishly use their time, energy, and resources to help and encourage one another. (Hebrews 10:24, 25) They help one another in times of distress, and they deal honestly with others. In fact, they apply in their lives the Bible counsel to “work what is good toward all.”—Galatians 6:10.
11 True Christians accept Jesus Christ as God’s means of salvation. The Bible says: “There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” (Acts 4:12) As we saw in Chapter 5, Jesus gave his life as a ransom for obedient humans. (Matthew 20:28) In addition, Jesus is God’s appointed King in the heavenly Kingdom that will rule the entire earth. And God requires that we obey Jesus and apply his teachings if we want everlasting life. That is why the Bible states: “He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life.”—John 3:36.
12 True worshipers are no part of the world. When on trial before the Roman ruler Pilate, Jesus said: “My kingdom is no part of this world.” (John 18:36) No matter what country they live in, Jesus’ true followers are subjects of his heavenly Kingdom and thus maintain strict neutrality in the world’s political affairs. They take no part in its conflicts. However, Jehovah’s worshipers do not interfere with what others choose to do about joining a political party, running for office, or voting. And while God’s true worshipers are neutral regarding politics, they are law-abiding. Why? Because God’s Word commands them to “be in subjection” to the governmental “superior authorities.” (Romans 13:1) Where there is a conflict between what God requires and what a political system requires, true worshipers follow the example of the apostles, who said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29; Mark 12:17.
13 Jesus’ true followers preach that God’s Kingdom is mankind’s only hope. Jesus foretold: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14) Instead of encouraging people to look to human rulers to solve their problems, true followers of Jesus Christ proclaim God’s heavenly Kingdom as the only hope for mankind. (Psalm 146:3) Jesus taught us to pray for that perfect government when he said: “Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” (Matthew 6:10) God’s Word foretold that this heavenly Kingdom “will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms [now existing], and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”—Daniel 2:44.
14 On the basis of what we have just considered, ask yourself: ‘What religious group bases all its teachings on the Bible and makes known Jehovah’s name? What group practices godly love, exercises faith in Jesus, is no part of the world, and proclaims that God’s Kingdom is the only real hope for mankind? Of all the religious groups on earth, which one meets all these requirements?’ The facts clearly show that it is Jehovah’s Witnesses.—Isaiah 43:10-12.
-From a publication we are currently studying
HOW TO IDENTIFY THE TRUE RELIGION
5 How can ‘the road to life’ be found? Jesus said that the true religion would be evident in the lives of the people who practice it. “By their fruits you will recognize them,” he said. “Every good tree produces fine fruit.” (Matthew 7:16, 17) In other words, those who practice the true religion would be recognized by their beliefs and their conduct. Although they are not perfect and they make mistakes, true worshipers as a group seek to do God’s will. Let us consider six features that identify those who practice true religion.
6 God’s servants base their teachings on the Bible. The Bible itself says: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man [or woman] of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) To his fellow Christians, the apostle Paul wrote: “When you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13) Hence, beliefs and practices of the true religion are not based on human views or tradition. They originate in God’s inspired Word, the Bible.
7 Jesus Christ set the proper example by basing his teachings on God’s Word. In prayer to his heavenly Father, he said: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) Jesus believed the Word of God, and everything he taught harmonized with the Scriptures. Jesus often said: “It is written.” (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10) Then Jesus would quote a scripture. Similarly, God’s people today do not teach their own ideas. They believe that the Bible is God’s Word, and they base their teachings firmly on what it says.
8 Those who practice the true religion worship only Jehovah and make his name known. Jesus declared: “It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Matthew 4:10) Thus, God’s servants worship no one other than Jehovah. This worship includes letting people know what the name of the true God is and what he is like. Psalm 83:18 states: “You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” Jesus set the pattern in helping others to get to know God, as he said in prayer: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world.” (John 17:6) Similarly, true worshipers today teach others about God’s name, his purposes, and his qualities.
9 God’s people show genuine, unselfish love for one another. Jesus said: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) The early Christians had such love for one another. Godly love overcomes racial, social, and national barriers and draws people together in an unbreakable bond of true brotherhood. (Colossians 3:14) Members of false religions do not have such a loving brotherhood. How do we know that? They kill one another because of national or ethnic differences. True Christians do not take up weapons to kill their Christian brothers or anyone else. The Bible states: “The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother. . . . We should have love for one another; not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother.”—1 John 3:10-12; 4:20, 21.
10 Of course, genuine love means more than not killing others. True Christians unselfishly use their time, energy, and resources to help and encourage one another. (Hebrews 10:24, 25) They help one another in times of distress, and they deal honestly with others. In fact, they apply in their lives the Bible counsel to “work what is good toward all.”—Galatians 6:10.
11 True Christians accept Jesus Christ as God’s means of salvation. The Bible says: “There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” (Acts 4:12) As we saw in Chapter 5, Jesus gave his life as a ransom for obedient humans. (Matthew 20:28) In addition, Jesus is God’s appointed King in the heavenly Kingdom that will rule the entire earth. And God requires that we obey Jesus and apply his teachings if we want everlasting life. That is why the Bible states: “He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life.”—John 3:36.
12 True worshipers are no part of the world. When on trial before the Roman ruler Pilate, Jesus said: “My kingdom is no part of this world.” (John 18:36) No matter what country they live in, Jesus’ true followers are subjects of his heavenly Kingdom and thus maintain strict neutrality in the world’s political affairs. They take no part in its conflicts. However, Jehovah’s worshipers do not interfere with what others choose to do about joining a political party, running for office, or voting. And while God’s true worshipers are neutral regarding politics, they are law-abiding. Why? Because God’s Word commands them to “be in subjection” to the governmental “superior authorities.” (Romans 13:1) Where there is a conflict between what God requires and what a political system requires, true worshipers follow the example of the apostles, who said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29; Mark 12:17.
13 Jesus’ true followers preach that God’s Kingdom is mankind’s only hope. Jesus foretold: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14) Instead of encouraging people to look to human rulers to solve their problems, true followers of Jesus Christ proclaim God’s heavenly Kingdom as the only hope for mankind. (Psalm 146:3) Jesus taught us to pray for that perfect government when he said: “Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.” (Matthew 6:10) God’s Word foretold that this heavenly Kingdom “will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms [now existing], and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”—Daniel 2:44.
14 On the basis of what we have just considered, ask yourself: ‘What religious group bases all its teachings on the Bible and makes known Jehovah’s name? What group practices godly love, exercises faith in Jesus, is no part of the world, and proclaims that God’s Kingdom is the only real hope for mankind? Of all the religious groups on earth, which one meets all these requirements?’ The facts clearly show that it is Jehovah’s Witnesses.—Isaiah 43:10-12.
-From a publication we are currently studying
Newguy: I struggle with the label "Christian", I struggle whether I will allow certain people to identify themselves as Christian in my mind. I find that I have a subjective definition; which is not entirely fair, but I have no better alternative.
For example, a person can claim to be Christian, but not follow many of the teachings of Christ. It's hard to believe that someone who commits many, many atrocities could be Christian, despite his protestations.
That said, I find (subjectively) that if a person claims to be Christian and somewhat acts Christian, I don't mind calling them such. If a person follows the teachings of Christ, or tries to, then I don't mind calling them Christian. Amusingly, if they disagree with me too much on a certain interpretation, I find my label to be against their Christian 'status'.
Now, I of course know that (according to the Christian faith) that only Jesus can tell who is 'actually' a Christian or not; but that's a tough definition to accept.
Regards
(Oh, and my point about science is that it seems to be a more consistent and stable way of reaching 'truth'. In that, it brings more truth to more people over time. Not really a cheap shot or anything, just an observation)
For example, a person can claim to be Christian, but not follow many of the teachings of Christ. It's hard to believe that someone who commits many, many atrocities could be Christian, despite his protestations.
That said, I find (subjectively) that if a person claims to be Christian and somewhat acts Christian, I don't mind calling them such. If a person follows the teachings of Christ, or tries to, then I don't mind calling them Christian. Amusingly, if they disagree with me too much on a certain interpretation, I find my label to be against their Christian 'status'.
Now, I of course know that (according to the Christian faith) that only Jesus can tell who is 'actually' a Christian or not; but that's a tough definition to accept.
Regards
(Oh, and my point about science is that it seems to be a more consistent and stable way of reaching 'truth'. In that, it brings more truth to more people over time. Not really a cheap shot or anything, just an observation)
Soundhertz:
I understand and sympathize fully, as this despicable lie is just one of the many false doctrines embraced by the churches to frighten and intimidate people into converting, and which dishonours God.
Why would they do this? Well, it's all about wealth and prestige to them, along with pride of numbers. This is no different from the religious hypocrites of Jesus' day whom he condemned to destruction. Then they try to twist and misapply Scriptures accordingly to fit. This tactic is seldom used today, as it doesn't work anymore, and all of a sudden everyone's going to heaven now, as He is now a fuzzy and warm God of love who forgives all. This too is dangerous philosophy, but they feel it is a better way to try and get people in, especially the young. Thus people can now feel free to do anything they like and still be forgiven, and besides, they don't need God anyhow because they have an immortal soul. So the devil's temptation of independence is further propagated. Of course, no-one is truly independent, but One, and true freedom does not depend on having no law, which would create anarchy. Laws should provide protection and security. Of course that is quite imperfect now. Yet God's laws are for our genuine peace, happiness, and security. The time soon will come when that will be achieved fully, when all opposers to that will be removed.
The Bible does not teach hellfire, the immortal soul, nor many others of their doctrine. "The wages sin pays is death" (Romans 3:23) The Bible clearly shows the result of sin and imperfection -death. Not some kind of afterlife. The resurrection is the common hope for mankind, in the manner that Jesus resurrected Lazarus. He was brought back again to live as a man on the earth, and was an example of the future general resurrection. Jesus was the first one ascending to Heaven of the heavenly class. So all the faithful ones before his time were still "sleeping" in the ground, and so did not have a resurrection to heaven; nor having some immortal soul immediately leave their bodies after death.
QUOTE
In my most foul mood I could not could not sentence a child of mine to hell for even one day because they MADE AN ERROR. But I guess we have to allow for this unmitigated fury to being one of the 'Mysteries of God". In which case Heaven will remain rather empty while hell is bursting at the seams, with a contented God looking on for ALL ETERNITY.
If I sound condescending, trust me it's nowhere close to how aggressive I was years ago with my Catholic superiors in discussing this subject.
If I sound condescending, trust me it's nowhere close to how aggressive I was years ago with my Catholic superiors in discussing this subject.
I understand and sympathize fully, as this despicable lie is just one of the many false doctrines embraced by the churches to frighten and intimidate people into converting, and which dishonours God.
Why would they do this? Well, it's all about wealth and prestige to them, along with pride of numbers. This is no different from the religious hypocrites of Jesus' day whom he condemned to destruction. Then they try to twist and misapply Scriptures accordingly to fit. This tactic is seldom used today, as it doesn't work anymore, and all of a sudden everyone's going to heaven now, as He is now a fuzzy and warm God of love who forgives all. This too is dangerous philosophy, but they feel it is a better way to try and get people in, especially the young. Thus people can now feel free to do anything they like and still be forgiven, and besides, they don't need God anyhow because they have an immortal soul. So the devil's temptation of independence is further propagated. Of course, no-one is truly independent, but One, and true freedom does not depend on having no law, which would create anarchy. Laws should provide protection and security. Of course that is quite imperfect now. Yet God's laws are for our genuine peace, happiness, and security. The time soon will come when that will be achieved fully, when all opposers to that will be removed.
The Bible does not teach hellfire, the immortal soul, nor many others of their doctrine. "The wages sin pays is death" (Romans 3:23) The Bible clearly shows the result of sin and imperfection -death. Not some kind of afterlife. The resurrection is the common hope for mankind, in the manner that Jesus resurrected Lazarus. He was brought back again to live as a man on the earth, and was an example of the future general resurrection. Jesus was the first one ascending to Heaven of the heavenly class. So all the faithful ones before his time were still "sleeping" in the ground, and so did not have a resurrection to heaven; nor having some immortal soul immediately leave their bodies after death.
I appreciate everyone's opinion and am not here to say that I am right. All I have is an opinion, and have professed some of it here and on many other posts. newguy to your question of course I don't see you in any way prone to any sort of violence - I've only been reading your posts for 10 months now? - you just have lots of energy and gumption which are so different than violent tendencies - that was a silly question 
PhilP this is what I mean. As long as you are not saying that everyone who is not a Jehovah's Witness will go to hell, fine. It's when we start feeling "special" that the problems arise. If one has to constrain Perfect Mind to fit narrow views, arrogance and humility have shifted their roles. Perhaps we have not absorbed the complete wisdom of Scripture yet, but we always think we're at the pinnacle, yet unworthy dust at the same time. Funny. You know, that's the one observation I have made where science and religion agree: that we were made out of dust. They'll agree on a lot more than that before it's "over" I'll warrant imho.
El Machinae, I have been a devout believer of science since I saw my first bug. I've made lots of posts on science/religion pseudo - mutual exclusivity and cognitive physics possibilities so I won't here. I admit I have unprovable belief in "Christ-Mindedness", but that is just one of many terms naming the undescribable. You've heard "nirvana", "cosmic consciousness", "satori", etc. My firm belief is that the last great barely-explored realm - the mind - will bring science to the front door of the greatest paradigm change we've ever seen. Whether the math can follow where the experience leads will not negate the power of the experience, or it's results. (Enjoy your posts btw.)
QUOTE
Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones doing so, in over 230 lands.
PhilP this is what I mean. As long as you are not saying that everyone who is not a Jehovah's Witness will go to hell, fine. It's when we start feeling "special" that the problems arise. If one has to constrain Perfect Mind to fit narrow views, arrogance and humility have shifted their roles. Perhaps we have not absorbed the complete wisdom of Scripture yet, but we always think we're at the pinnacle, yet unworthy dust at the same time. Funny. You know, that's the one observation I have made where science and religion agree: that we were made out of dust. They'll agree on a lot more than that before it's "over" I'll warrant
imho.El Machinae, I have been a devout believer of science since I saw my first bug. I've made lots of posts on science/religion pseudo - mutual exclusivity and cognitive physics possibilities so I won't here. I admit I have unprovable belief in "Christ-Mindedness", but that is just one of many terms naming the undescribable. You've heard "nirvana", "cosmic consciousness", "satori", etc. My firm belief is that the last great barely-explored realm - the mind - will bring science to the front door of the greatest paradigm change we've ever seen. Whether the math can follow where the experience leads will not negate the power of the experience, or it's results. (Enjoy your posts btw.)
I appreciate your honesty Soundhertz, and I know that most people express their opinions as facts. I do not however. Except where it comes to things I know, such as Bible truths, which are not my own interpretation, and I claim no credit for. So I'm not making myself important. In fact I'm the lowest of the low. But I am obligated to share what I know with others, as this is a life-saving work. Even Jesus did not claim to speak of his own originality, but only what the Father taught him, he repeated. Even for his miracles he rightly ascribed the power as coming from his Father. Perhaps I should say "I believe", or "we believe" such and such; if you'd feel better about that.
Also we don't need to know everything about the Bible before we start talking about it to others. Even children do so after learning the basics.
I'd never say that, but I feel this is important in any comment about identifying the true religion. If we do all those things, should we not say so? Nobody will know otherwise unless they are already familiar with us. We are proud of that fact. But being entrusted with this knowledge is an undeserved privilege, and does not make us superior somehow.
We don't say everyone else will be destroyed, as to start with, we won't be able to reach everyone before the end comes. Then there are children whom we don't meet, people with mental disorders, and professional people whom we may never get to meet. Some lands with large populations are barely touched. So God is not unrighteous so as to destroy ones who never had a chance to respond to the Good News. Yet people are being judged today on the basis of their response to it.
What we do say is that all those who proudly and stubbornly refuse to submit to God's rulership will not be saved. But we are not in any position to judge who these might be. All God asks of us is to love him and obey his requirements, which are only there for our welfare anyhow.
Also we don't need to know everything about the Bible before we start talking about it to others. Even children do so after learning the basics.
QUOTE
As long as you are not saying that everyone who is not a Jehovah's Witness will go to hell, fine.
I'd never say that, but I feel this is important in any comment about identifying the true religion. If we do all those things, should we not say so? Nobody will know otherwise unless they are already familiar with us. We are proud of that fact. But being entrusted with this knowledge is an undeserved privilege, and does not make us superior somehow.
We don't say everyone else will be destroyed, as to start with, we won't be able to reach everyone before the end comes. Then there are children whom we don't meet, people with mental disorders, and professional people whom we may never get to meet. Some lands with large populations are barely touched. So God is not unrighteous so as to destroy ones who never had a chance to respond to the Good News. Yet people are being judged today on the basis of their response to it.
What we do say is that all those who proudly and stubbornly refuse to submit to God's rulership will not be saved. But we are not in any position to judge who these might be. All God asks of us is to love him and obey his requirements, which are only there for our welfare anyhow.
QUOTE (PhilP+Oct 18 2006, 02:59 AM)
HOW TO IDENTIFY THE TRUE RELIGION
That article was nothing about identifying 'the true religion', it immediately opened with quotes from the Bible. How can you search for 'the true religion' when you only look at one? Of course the Bible says "I'm true", so does the Quran. If it didn't, would people believe in it?
That article is nothign about being open minded, it's about the author saying "You believe the Bible? Good job, now I'll tell you why you're right without making reference to any other religion, because you and I both know their all wrong so lets slap ourselves on the back!"
That article was nothing about identifying 'the true religion', it immediately opened with quotes from the Bible. How can you search for 'the true religion' when you only look at one? Of course the Bible says "I'm true", so does the Quran. If it didn't, would people believe in it?
That article is nothign about being open minded, it's about the author saying "You believe the Bible? Good job, now I'll tell you why you're right without making reference to any other religion, because you and I both know their all wrong so lets slap ourselves on the back!"
I think you're reading too much between the lines AlphaNumeric. I am not putting myself above anyone else. Yes I was speaking to those already believing the Bible. In the case of those who do not, there is more which needs to be discussed before reaching that stage.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
newguy to your question of course I don't see you in any way prone to any sort of violence - I've only been reading your posts for 10 months now? - you just have lots of energy and gumption which are so different than violent tendencies - that was a silly question
soundhertz: I only asked the "silly question" to hopefully make a point. The point is that Christians don't go around hurting people. The Crusades, Inquisitions, Hitler, etc. are NOT true representations of Christ/Christianity and yet they have been cited by several people on this forum in the past to denounce Christ/Christianity. I'm merely trying to make a distinction between what is true and what is patently false. There are those who have claimed that anyone who simply says they are a Christian is a Christian. That is NOT what the scriptures teach. You'll know a tree by its fruit. I doubt that the ones who are so free to label everyone a Christian would show that same freedom when it comes to documented frauds within the scientific community. Are frauds "scientists"? Are all "scientists" therefore frauds? That's the type of garbage reasoning that some have postulated in regards to Christ/Christianity. That is what I'm debunking...NOT you. I've probably been unfairly "rough" in some of my responses to you and El Machinae. My "beef"(despising the actions of those who deliberately use strawmen arguments) isn't really with either one of you. You've both shown the ability to engage in open dialogue and I sincererly appreciate it...and I trust you know that I'm NOT the type to "flatter".
Take care.
soundhertz: I only asked the "silly question" to hopefully make a point. The point is that Christians don't go around hurting people. The Crusades, Inquisitions, Hitler, etc. are NOT true representations of Christ/Christianity and yet they have been cited by several people on this forum in the past to denounce Christ/Christianity. I'm merely trying to make a distinction between what is true and what is patently false. There are those who have claimed that anyone who simply says they are a Christian is a Christian. That is NOT what the scriptures teach. You'll know a tree by its fruit. I doubt that the ones who are so free to label everyone a Christian would show that same freedom when it comes to documented frauds within the scientific community. Are frauds "scientists"? Are all "scientists" therefore frauds? That's the type of garbage reasoning that some have postulated in regards to Christ/Christianity. That is what I'm debunking...NOT you. I've probably been unfairly "rough" in some of my responses to you and El Machinae. My "beef"(despising the actions of those who deliberately use strawmen arguments) isn't really with either one of you. You've both shown the ability to engage in open dialogue and I sincererly appreciate it...and I trust you know that I'm NOT the type to "flatter".
Take care.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
Jehovah God the Creator is one God, and detests false worship in all forms. We can never obey his requirements properly if we haven't learnt accurately what they are.
"However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively."
(2 Peter 2:1,2)
So God is certainly not pleased by false worship, along with it's unrighteous fruitage. I do agree with you that men have deviated from ways of truth. It's not God who has changed, and he has no need to change; all his ways being perfect. Knowing the future intimately also enabled his Word to provide practical knowledge and wisdom even for today. As you say too, at times the Bible text has been altered to lend support to manmade false doctrines, besides the general omission of God's personal name, Jehovah. How translators would dare make such deliberate misleading changes is bewildering, but also leaves them accountable to the judgment of Revelation directed to any who would vary the Scriptures.
Also the Bible is widely misunderstood, and misapplied. However, with careful attention to context and comparison with other passages, most things can be ascertained and reasoned out accurately. At least with proper guidance and research. Yes, God is more than just writings in a book. But this book has enabled our whole Organization to exist and thrive with his backing, and also being practical, is our whole guide to living, as well as providing the basis for our solid hope for the future. It doesn't tell us everything we'd like to know, but everything we need to know at this time is there specifically or in principle.
"However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively."
(2 Peter 2:1,2)
So God is certainly not pleased by false worship, along with it's unrighteous fruitage. I do agree with you that men have deviated from ways of truth. It's not God who has changed, and he has no need to change; all his ways being perfect. Knowing the future intimately also enabled his Word to provide practical knowledge and wisdom even for today. As you say too, at times the Bible text has been altered to lend support to manmade false doctrines, besides the general omission of God's personal name, Jehovah. How translators would dare make such deliberate misleading changes is bewildering, but also leaves them accountable to the judgment of Revelation directed to any who would vary the Scriptures.
Also the Bible is widely misunderstood, and misapplied. However, with careful attention to context and comparison with other passages, most things can be ascertained and reasoned out accurately. At least with proper guidance and research. Yes, God is more than just writings in a book. But this book has enabled our whole Organization to exist and thrive with his backing, and also being practical, is our whole guide to living, as well as providing the basis for our solid hope for the future. It doesn't tell us everything we'd like to know, but everything we need to know at this time is there specifically or in principle.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
Jehovah's Witnesses have been spreading the Word of God's Kingdom for more than 100 years in modern times in obedience to Jesus' commands, to glorify God, offer life to others, and provide a warning of things to come shortly. This is done out of love and obedience to God, love for their fellow-men, and to save themselves from bloodguilt. All will have the opportunity to hear. "This good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth, for a witness to all nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14) Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones doing so, in over 230 lands. So it is fulfilling the prophecy, and the latter part of it will also without fail occur, when the day of Armageddon arrives.
PhilP: Jehovah's Witnesses have been sounding a FALSE ALARM for quite some time now, haven't they? Haven't they?!? When is Armageddon "arriving" this time? Jehovah's Witnesses are "the only ones" doing what? Spreading FALSE PROPHECIES? I wish they were the only ones, but they're simply one of many. Put down your "trumpet" and go do some research on your own "organization" before you try to ram it down anyone's throat as "the True Religion". Thanks.
http://www.freeminds.org/psych/propfail.htm
When Prophecies Fail
A Sociological Perspective on Failed Expectation in the Watchtower Society
by Randall Watters
from the Bethel Ministries Newsletter May/June 1990 (now the Free Minds Journal)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few aspects of the Jehovah's Witness movement are more fascinating to the outside observer than their predictions of the end of the world. Yet the predictions themselves are just the surface ripples of a much deeper current in the lives of the movement's adherents. How the prophecies affect the members, how their belief in the prophecy gets stronger, and how they cope with disillusionment and finally regroup with greater strength is far more fascinating food for thought.
There have been plenty of end-times scenarios that could be studied since the time of Christ. As early as the second century, the charismatic leader Montanus gained a following around the belief that the second coming of the Lord was at hand, and that this would occur at a specific location according to his "New Prophecy". Harold O.J. Brown says,
"Montanus' conviction that the end of the age was at hand led him to call on Christians to abstain from marriage, dissolve marriages already contracted, and gather in an appropriate place to await the descent of the heavenly city. The heavenly city did not descend when expected, and consequently Montanus and his followers had to come to terms with its delay, as the whole church had to learn to deal with the postponement of Christ's Second Coming." 1
What is interesting, however, was that the Montanists did not die out right away, but continued as a small cult for several centuries in Phrygia of Asia Minor."
Leon Festinger's Theory
In studying this phenomena, credit must be given to Leon Festinger for his cognitive dissonance theory, 2 as developed in his book When Prophecy Fails, originally published in 1956 and co-authored by Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter. The authors comprised a research team who conducted a study of a small cult-following of a Mrs. Marian Keech, a housewife who claimed to receive messages from aliens via automatic writing. The message of the aliens was one of a coming world cataclysm, but with the hope of surviving for the elect who listened to them through Keech and selected other mediums. What Festinger and his associates demonstrated in the end was that the failure of prophecy often has the opposite effect of what the average person might expect; the cult following often gets stronger and the members even more convinced of the truth of their actions and beliefs! This unique paradox is the focus of attention in this article, and will be later applied specifically to the Jehovah's Witness movement.
Festinger observes:
"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.
"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. 3 (italics ours)
When Prophecy Fails focuses on the failure of prophecies to come true, termed disconfirmation by Festinger, and the accompanied renewal of energy and faith in their source of divine guidance. His theory presupposes the cult having certain identifying features, such as: (a) belief held with deep conviction along with respective actions taken, (
the belief or prediction must be specific enough to be disconfirmed (i.e., it didn't happen), © the believer is a member of a group of like-minded believers who support one another and even proselytize. All of these characteristics were present in the saucer cult.
Of particular interest in Festinger's book is how the followers of Mrs. Keech reacted to each disconfirmation (failed date). Little attempt was made to deny the failure. The strength to continue in the movement was derived, not largely from the rationalizations , but from the very energy of the group itself and its dedication to the cause. This explains why proselytizing was so successful later in reinforcing the group's sagging belief system. Festinger relates:
"But whatever explanation is made it is still by itself not sufficient. The dissonance is too important and though they may try to hide it, even from themselves, the believers still know that the prediction was false and all their preparations were in vain. The dissonance cannot be eliminated completely by denying or rationalizing the disconfirmation. But there is a way in which the remaining dissonance can be reduced. If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must, after all, be correct. Consider the extreme case: if everyone in the whole world believed something there would be no question at all as to the validity of this belief. It is for this reason that we observe the increase in proselytizing following disconfirmation. If the proselytizing proves successful, then by gathering more adherents and effectively surrounding himself with supporters, the believer reduces dissonance to the point where he can live with it." 4
In the end, the members of the flying saucer cult did not give up their faith in the Guardians from outer space with their promises of a new world. Despite numerous prophecies and the resultant disappointment accentuated by many personal sacrifices, the group remained strong. Summarizing the final stages of the flying saucer cult, Festinger says:
"Summarizing the evidence on the effect that disconfirmation had on the conviction of group members, we find that, of the eleven members of the Lake City group who faced unequivocal disconfirmation, only two, Kurt Freund and Arthur Bergen, both of whom were lightly committed to begin with, completely gave up their belief in Mrs. Keech's writings. Five members of the group, the Posts, the Armstrongs, and Mrs. Keech, all of whom entered the pre-cataclysm period strongly convinced and heavily committed, passed through this period of disconfirmation and its aftermath with their faith firm, unshaken, and lasting. Cleo Armstrong and Bob Eastman, who had come to Lake City heavily committed but with their conviction shaken by Ella Lowell, emerged from the disconfirmation of December 21 more strongly convinced than before..." 5
Application to the Watchtower
Festinger and co-authors review a few of the historic millennial movements. Among them were the Millerites, a cult centered around the advent hopes for the end of the world to come in the year 1843 as taught by William Miller. The feelings of those in the Millerite movement after the 1843 prophecy had passed were conveyed in the memoirs of F.D. Nichol (who continued to defend William Miller even after the disconfirmed date):
"Our fondest hopes and expectations were blasted, and such a spirit of weeping came over us as I never experienced before. It seemed that the loss of all earthly friends could have been no comparison. We wept, and wept, till the day dawn. I mused in my own heart, saying, my advent experience has been the richest and brightest of all my Christian experience. If this had proved a failure, what was the rest of my Christian experience worth? Has the Bible proved a failure? Is there no God, no heaven, no golden home city, no paradise? Is all this but a cunningly devised fable? Is there no reality to our fondest hope and expectation of these things? And thus we had something to grieve and weep over, if all our fond hopes were lost. And as I said, we wept till the day dawn." 6
Interestingly, Festinger fails to discuss the International Bible Students (later known as Jehovah's Witnesses) who borrowed extensively from several millennial theories of the day. In January 1876 Russell began a partnership with Nelson H. Barbour, a former Millerite. Barbour convinced Russell that the year 1873 marked the end of 6000 years of human history.
Historian M. James Penton tells us that Barbour had gone far beyond Wendell and his associates, who had originally believed that 1873 would see the second advent and the consummation of the earth by fire. When nothing visible had happened in that year, they were at first quite perplexed until B.W. Keith, a reader of the Herald, discovered Benjamin Wilson's translation of parousia as "presence" Then, like Russell, Barbour and Paton began to believe in the idea of an invisible presence of the Christ, which they felt had begun on schedule in 1874." 7
Penton, a Watchtower historian and critic of the movement, relates additional information regarding the prophecies of Russell:
"No major Christian sectarian movement has been so insistent on prophesying the end of the present world in such definite ways or on such specific dates as have Jehovah's Witnesses, at least since the Millerites and Second Adventists of the nineteenth century who were the Witnesses' direct millenarian forbears. During the early years of their history, they consistently looked to specific dates-1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, and others-as having definite eschatological significance...When these prophecies failed, they had to be reinterpreted, spiritualized, or, in some cases, ultimately abandoned. This did not deter Russell or his followers from setting new dates, however, or from simply proclaiming that the end of this world or system of things was no more than a few years or perhaps even months away." 8
The results of disconfirmation of prophecy within the organization was later admitted by the Watch Tower itself:
"The Watch Tower, and its companion publications of the Society, for forty years emphasized the fact that 1914 would witness the establishment of God's kingdom and the complete glorification of the church. During that period of forty years God's people on earth were carrying on a witness work, which work was foreshadowed by Elijah and John the Baptist. All of the Lord's people looked forward to 1914 with joyful expectation.
"When that time came and passed there was much disappointment, chagrin and mourning, and the Lord's people were greatly in reproach; They were ridiculed by the clergy and their allies in particular, and pointed to with scorn, because they had said so much about 1914, and what would come to pass, and their `prophecies' had not been fulfilled." 9
The disconfirmation of the 1914 date did not deter the majority of the Bible Students. Russell had the ability to lift up their spirits with new fervor and hope, as the December 15, 1914 issue of The Watch Tower illustrates:
"God has promised that He will give His true children the light at the time appointed, and that they shall have the joy of understanding His Plan at the appropriate season ... Even if the time of our change should not come within ten years, what more should we ask? Are we not a blessed, happy people? Is not our God faithful? If anyone knows anything better, let him take it. If any of you ever find anything better, we hope you will tell us. We know of nothing better nor half as good as what we have found in the Word of God." 10
Russell reworked his chronology and moved the date for the end of the world up to 1915. After the end failed to materialize in 1915, the end was set for 1918, when "God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions." 11
At the death of C.T. Russell in 1916, J.F. Rutherford took over the role of the `prophet,' proclaiming in 1920 that Millions Now Living Will Never Die in a booklet and lecture by the same name. Rutherford set a new date for the end for 1925, also claiming that it would bring the resurrection of the ancient men of God to the earth, such as Abraham, Isaac, David, etc. So sure was Rutherford of this that he made the following statements:
"Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the apostle in Hebrews chapter 11, to the condition of human perfection." 12
"The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the scriptures than 1914." 13
"Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." 14
Rutherford even had a house built in San Diego for these ancients, and it was deeded to them when it was built! 15 Bearing witness to the ability of the Witnesses to ride out this period of disconfirmation, the house and the prophecy wasn't abandoned until 1943, when it was promptly sold. The Witnesses were later told that it was "built for brother Rutherford's use." 16
Rutherford kept the Witnesses occupied with proselytizing during the thirties. As with the flying saucer cult, Rutherford began teaching that there was some great significance in their disappointment over the disconfirmed prophecies and that the dates were somehow important, but they eventually decided against setting dates:
"There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1914, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time. Later the faithful learned that these dates were definitely fixed in the Scriptures; and they also learned to quit fixing dates for the future and predicting what would come to pass on a certain date ..." 17
The disappointment didn't last long, however. The outbreak of World War II was seen as the beginning of Armageddon. An in-house publication of the Watchtower stated in 1940:
"The Kingdom is here, the King is enthroned. Armageddon is just ahead. The glorious reign of Christ that shall bring blessings to the world will immediately follow. Therefore the great climax has been reached. Tribulation has fallen upon those who stand by the Lord." 18
The Watchtower of September 15, 1941 (p . 288) even stated that we are "in the remaining months before Armageddon." Armageddon fever was at an all-time high. Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, former member of the Watchtower's Bethel family, gives us a glimpse of the air of expectancy:
"So firmly did Jehovah's Witnesses believe this to be true that there were those who, in 1944, refused to get their teeth filled, postponing all care of their bodies until God saw to their regeneration in His New World. (One zealous Witness I knew carried a supply of cloves to alleviate the pain of an aching molar which she did not wish to have treated by her dentist, since the time was so short till Jehovah would provide a new and perfect one. To this day, I associate the fragrance of cloves with the imminence of disaster.)" 19
A New Date - 1975
The end came for Rutherford in 1942, as he passed away and N.H. Knorr took his place as the key member of the faithful and discreet slave, dispensing prophetic messages to the Witnesses. However, more credit is due to Frederick W. Franz, Knorr's vice-president, for the prediction of 1975 that first appeared in Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God (1966). Exercising caution in stating that this new date would definitely be the end, Franz (through his public lectures and Watchtower articles) made statements such as "according to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E." 20 Any Jehovah's Witness knew that the end of 6000 years meant the beginning of the millennium of Christ's reign. The Awake! magazine of October 8, 1968 (p. 14) stated, "How fitting it would be for God, following this pattern, to end man's misery after six thousand years of human rule and follow it with his glorious Kingdom rule for a thousand years!"
In lectures given to the members of the headquarters staff in New York, Franz stated (regarding the end) that "we don't know now if it will be weeks or months," before a crowd of 2000 Witnesses. 21 Many other statements were made in print. One traveling overseer even gave a public talk indicating it would be a total lack of faith to doubt that 1975 would be the end! 22 Franz became the fourth president of the Watchtower a year later.
Unlike the flying saucer cult and the Millerites, the Watchtower was at first unwilling to accept blame for the disconfirmation, shifting it to "over-zealous brothers." Many Witnesses, however, were outraged and the Watchtower finally accepted much of the blame publicly.
Friends of those who were Jehovah's Witnesses often noted the changes in their lives as 1975 approached. Janice Godlove relates this regarding her JW brother and sister-in-law:
"As 1975 approached, the signs of tension increased. Strange bits and pieces of the family atmosphere came to our attention. There was an almost morbid fascination with flocks of birds gathering in the fall. We were given all of their canned goods since they wouldn't need them anymore. An access panel had been cut in the wall behind their washing machine and the boys (who were 5 and 3 at the time) were told to run to the kitchen and hide if they heard screams. Bill was so disappointed by the failure of 1975 that he attempted suicide. But the tract we left by his hospital bed went unread and the family remained in the organization." 23
Today, 1975 is played down, but no recent reason is officially given for the disconfirmation, nor is there any further official date on the horizon. Some recent converts are even unaware of the 1975 expectations.
A Pattern for the Future
A pattern emerges when we examine the growth figures before and after each disconfirmation. Typically, there was a rapid growth in numbers at least two years before the prophetic date, followed by a falling away of some (viewed as a "cleansing" of the organization of the unfaithful), then another growth spurt as a new emphasis on evangelism was put forward.
It may seem incomprehensible how the Witnesses could ignore the implications of each disconfirmation. Outsiders view the Witnesses as lacking common sense for not leaving the organization after numerous failures. They fail to understand the dynamics of mind control as used by cults. Even many ex-JWs fail to understand that the further disconfirmation of the importance of 1914 and "this generation" will not seriously affect the numbers of those swelling the ranks of the Watchtower. The results of mind control and unquestioning obedience will have the same effect today as it did in Russell's day. His view was, "Where else can we go?" Harrison writes regarding this attitude,
"That, of course, is one of the keys to survival of the organization Russell founded on soft mysticism, glorious visions and worldly disaffection. The Witnesses had nowhere else to go. Their investment in their religion was total; to leave it would have meant spiritual and emotional bankruptcy. They were not equipped to function in a world without certainty. It was their life. To leave it would be a death." 24
This same dependency-unto-death phenomena is at work in thousands of cults all over the world. People wondered at Jonestown: "Why didn't they leave when they saw what Jim Jones was becoming?" The people of Jonestown answered by their actions, "Where else would we go?" They had burned their bridges to follow their Messiah unto death.
Over 110 years and several failed prophecies later, the Watchtower movement is testimony enough that failed predictions do not mean the dissolution of a cult following. The failure of 1975 resulted in a decrease of less than 2%. 25 The Watchtower will always be able to develop clever rationalizations regarding their changing dates, as their history documents. Today, the Watchtower grows at a rate of about 5% per year worldwide, with over 3.7 million door knockers and over 9 million sympathizers! 26
When the dissolution of the Watchtower movement comes, as it inevitably will, it will more likely be due to dissension from within than from the disconfirmation of prophecy. Until that day, let us hope and pray that the eyes of many Witnesses will be opened up to the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ and come to Him.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies (New York: Doubleday, 1984), p. 67.
2. In brief, Festinger explains the cognitive dissonance theory thusly:
"Dissonance and consonance are relations among cognitions that is, among opinions, beliefs, knowledge of the environment, and knowledge of one's own actions and feelings. Two opinions, or beliefs, or items of knowledge are dissonant with each other if they do not fit together that is, if they are inconsistent, or if, considering only the particular two items, one does not follow from the other. For example, a cigarette smoker who believes that smoking is bad for his health has an opinion that is dissonant with the knowledge that he is continuing to smoke. He may have many other opinions, beliefs, or items of knowledge that are consonant with continuing to smoke but the dissonance nevertheless exists too.
"Dissonance produces discomfort and, correspondingly, there will arise pressures to reduce or eliminate the dissonance. Attempts to reduce dissonance represent the observable manifestations that dissonance exists. Such attempts may take any or all of three forms. The person may try to change one or more of the beliefs, opinions, or behaviors involved in the dissonance; to acquire new information or beliefs that will increase the existing consonance and thus cause the total dissonance to be reduced; or to forget or reduce the importance of those cognitions that are in a dissonant relationship." (p. 25-26)
"Alternatively, the dissonance would be reduced or eliminated if the members of a movement effectively blind themselves to the fact that the prediction has not been fulfilled. But most people, including members of such movements, are in touch with reality and cannot simply blot out of their cognition such an unequivocal and undeniable fact. They can try to ignore it, however, and they usually do try. They may convince themselves that the date was wrong but that the prediction will, after all, be shortly confirmed; or they may even set another date as the Millerites did.... Rationalization can reduce dissonance somewhat. For rationalization to be fully effective, support from others is needed to make the explanation or the revision seem correct. Fortunately, the disappointed believer can usually turn to the others in the same movement, who have the same dissonance and the same pressures to reduce it. Support for the new explanation is, hence, forthcoming and the members of the movement can recover somewhat from the shock of the disconfirmation." --Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter, When Prophecy Fails, (New York: Harper and Row, 1956), pp. 27, 28.
3. ibid., p. 3.
4. ibid., p. 28.
5. ibid., p. 208.
6. ibid., p. 22; quoted from Hiram Edson, fragment of ms. on his life and experience, pp. 8,9, quoted in Francis D. Nichol, The Midnight Cry (Tacoma Park, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Company, 1944), pp. 247-248.
7. M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), p. 18.
8. ibid., pp. 34.
9. Joseph Rutherford, Light, Book I (New York: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1930), p. 194.
10. The Watch Tower, 12/15/14, p. 377.
11. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (WTBTS), The Finished Mystery, 1917 edition, p. 485.
12. WTBTS, Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, p. 89.
13. The Watch Tower, 9/1/22, p. 262.
14. ibid., 4/1/23, p. 106.
15. Consolation (WTBTS), 5/27/42, p. 3, also Golden Age (WTBTS), 3/19/30, p. 406, 407.
16. WTBTS, 1975 Yearbook, p. 194.
17. WTBTS, Vindication, Book I, 1931, pp. 338, 339.
18. WTBTS, The Messenger, 9/1/40, p. 6.
19. Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Visions of Glory (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), p. 16.
20. WTBTS, Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God, 1966, p. 29.
21. F.W. Franz, verbatim as quoted by Randall Watters, present at the March 2, 1975 graduating class of the students of Gilead school. See The Watchtower, 5/1/75, p. 285.
22. Message given by C. Sunutko, Circuit Overseer, in 1967 (tape available).
23. The Bethel Ministries Newsletter, November, 1987, in a letter by Janice Godlove respecting her brother and sisterinlaw.
24. Harrison, p. 167.
25. Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983), p. 212.
26. WTBTS, 1990 Yearbook, pp. 4041.
PhilP: Jehovah's Witnesses have been sounding a FALSE ALARM for quite some time now, haven't they? Haven't they?!? When is Armageddon "arriving" this time? Jehovah's Witnesses are "the only ones" doing what? Spreading FALSE PROPHECIES? I wish they were the only ones, but they're simply one of many. Put down your "trumpet" and go do some research on your own "organization" before you try to ram it down anyone's throat as "the True Religion". Thanks.
http://www.freeminds.org/psych/propfail.htm
When Prophecies Fail
A Sociological Perspective on Failed Expectation in the Watchtower Society
by Randall Watters
from the Bethel Ministries Newsletter May/June 1990 (now the Free Minds Journal)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few aspects of the Jehovah's Witness movement are more fascinating to the outside observer than their predictions of the end of the world. Yet the predictions themselves are just the surface ripples of a much deeper current in the lives of the movement's adherents. How the prophecies affect the members, how their belief in the prophecy gets stronger, and how they cope with disillusionment and finally regroup with greater strength is far more fascinating food for thought.
There have been plenty of end-times scenarios that could be studied since the time of Christ. As early as the second century, the charismatic leader Montanus gained a following around the belief that the second coming of the Lord was at hand, and that this would occur at a specific location according to his "New Prophecy". Harold O.J. Brown says,
"Montanus' conviction that the end of the age was at hand led him to call on Christians to abstain from marriage, dissolve marriages already contracted, and gather in an appropriate place to await the descent of the heavenly city. The heavenly city did not descend when expected, and consequently Montanus and his followers had to come to terms with its delay, as the whole church had to learn to deal with the postponement of Christ's Second Coming." 1
What is interesting, however, was that the Montanists did not die out right away, but continued as a small cult for several centuries in Phrygia of Asia Minor."
Leon Festinger's Theory
In studying this phenomena, credit must be given to Leon Festinger for his cognitive dissonance theory, 2 as developed in his book When Prophecy Fails, originally published in 1956 and co-authored by Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter. The authors comprised a research team who conducted a study of a small cult-following of a Mrs. Marian Keech, a housewife who claimed to receive messages from aliens via automatic writing. The message of the aliens was one of a coming world cataclysm, but with the hope of surviving for the elect who listened to them through Keech and selected other mediums. What Festinger and his associates demonstrated in the end was that the failure of prophecy often has the opposite effect of what the average person might expect; the cult following often gets stronger and the members even more convinced of the truth of their actions and beliefs! This unique paradox is the focus of attention in this article, and will be later applied specifically to the Jehovah's Witness movement.
Festinger observes:
"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.
"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. 3 (italics ours)
When Prophecy Fails focuses on the failure of prophecies to come true, termed disconfirmation by Festinger, and the accompanied renewal of energy and faith in their source of divine guidance. His theory presupposes the cult having certain identifying features, such as: (a) belief held with deep conviction along with respective actions taken, (
the belief or prediction must be specific enough to be disconfirmed (i.e., it didn't happen), © the believer is a member of a group of like-minded believers who support one another and even proselytize. All of these characteristics were present in the saucer cult. Of particular interest in Festinger's book is how the followers of Mrs. Keech reacted to each disconfirmation (failed date). Little attempt was made to deny the failure. The strength to continue in the movement was derived, not largely from the rationalizations , but from the very energy of the group itself and its dedication to the cause. This explains why proselytizing was so successful later in reinforcing the group's sagging belief system. Festinger relates:
"But whatever explanation is made it is still by itself not sufficient. The dissonance is too important and though they may try to hide it, even from themselves, the believers still know that the prediction was false and all their preparations were in vain. The dissonance cannot be eliminated completely by denying or rationalizing the disconfirmation. But there is a way in which the remaining dissonance can be reduced. If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must, after all, be correct. Consider the extreme case: if everyone in the whole world believed something there would be no question at all as to the validity of this belief. It is for this reason that we observe the increase in proselytizing following disconfirmation. If the proselytizing proves successful, then by gathering more adherents and effectively surrounding himself with supporters, the believer reduces dissonance to the point where he can live with it." 4
In the end, the members of the flying saucer cult did not give up their faith in the Guardians from outer space with their promises of a new world. Despite numerous prophecies and the resultant disappointment accentuated by many personal sacrifices, the group remained strong. Summarizing the final stages of the flying saucer cult, Festinger says:
"Summarizing the evidence on the effect that disconfirmation had on the conviction of group members, we find that, of the eleven members of the Lake City group who faced unequivocal disconfirmation, only two, Kurt Freund and Arthur Bergen, both of whom were lightly committed to begin with, completely gave up their belief in Mrs. Keech's writings. Five members of the group, the Posts, the Armstrongs, and Mrs. Keech, all of whom entered the pre-cataclysm period strongly convinced and heavily committed, passed through this period of disconfirmation and its aftermath with their faith firm, unshaken, and lasting. Cleo Armstrong and Bob Eastman, who had come to Lake City heavily committed but with their conviction shaken by Ella Lowell, emerged from the disconfirmation of December 21 more strongly convinced than before..." 5
Application to the Watchtower
Festinger and co-authors review a few of the historic millennial movements. Among them were the Millerites, a cult centered around the advent hopes for the end of the world to come in the year 1843 as taught by William Miller. The feelings of those in the Millerite movement after the 1843 prophecy had passed were conveyed in the memoirs of F.D. Nichol (who continued to defend William Miller even after the disconfirmed date):
"Our fondest hopes and expectations were blasted, and such a spirit of weeping came over us as I never experienced before. It seemed that the loss of all earthly friends could have been no comparison. We wept, and wept, till the day dawn. I mused in my own heart, saying, my advent experience has been the richest and brightest of all my Christian experience. If this had proved a failure, what was the rest of my Christian experience worth? Has the Bible proved a failure? Is there no God, no heaven, no golden home city, no paradise? Is all this but a cunningly devised fable? Is there no reality to our fondest hope and expectation of these things? And thus we had something to grieve and weep over, if all our fond hopes were lost. And as I said, we wept till the day dawn." 6
Interestingly, Festinger fails to discuss the International Bible Students (later known as Jehovah's Witnesses) who borrowed extensively from several millennial theories of the day. In January 1876 Russell began a partnership with Nelson H. Barbour, a former Millerite. Barbour convinced Russell that the year 1873 marked the end of 6000 years of human history.
Historian M. James Penton tells us that Barbour had gone far beyond Wendell and his associates, who had originally believed that 1873 would see the second advent and the consummation of the earth by fire. When nothing visible had happened in that year, they were at first quite perplexed until B.W. Keith, a reader of the Herald, discovered Benjamin Wilson's translation of parousia as "presence" Then, like Russell, Barbour and Paton began to believe in the idea of an invisible presence of the Christ, which they felt had begun on schedule in 1874." 7
Penton, a Watchtower historian and critic of the movement, relates additional information regarding the prophecies of Russell:
"No major Christian sectarian movement has been so insistent on prophesying the end of the present world in such definite ways or on such specific dates as have Jehovah's Witnesses, at least since the Millerites and Second Adventists of the nineteenth century who were the Witnesses' direct millenarian forbears. During the early years of their history, they consistently looked to specific dates-1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, and others-as having definite eschatological significance...When these prophecies failed, they had to be reinterpreted, spiritualized, or, in some cases, ultimately abandoned. This did not deter Russell or his followers from setting new dates, however, or from simply proclaiming that the end of this world or system of things was no more than a few years or perhaps even months away." 8
The results of disconfirmation of prophecy within the organization was later admitted by the Watch Tower itself:
"The Watch Tower, and its companion publications of the Society, for forty years emphasized the fact that 1914 would witness the establishment of God's kingdom and the complete glorification of the church. During that period of forty years God's people on earth were carrying on a witness work, which work was foreshadowed by Elijah and John the Baptist. All of the Lord's people looked forward to 1914 with joyful expectation.
"When that time came and passed there was much disappointment, chagrin and mourning, and the Lord's people were greatly in reproach; They were ridiculed by the clergy and their allies in particular, and pointed to with scorn, because they had said so much about 1914, and what would come to pass, and their `prophecies' had not been fulfilled." 9
The disconfirmation of the 1914 date did not deter the majority of the Bible Students. Russell had the ability to lift up their spirits with new fervor and hope, as the December 15, 1914 issue of The Watch Tower illustrates:
"God has promised that He will give His true children the light at the time appointed, and that they shall have the joy of understanding His Plan at the appropriate season ... Even if the time of our change should not come within ten years, what more should we ask? Are we not a blessed, happy people? Is not our God faithful? If anyone knows anything better, let him take it. If any of you ever find anything better, we hope you will tell us. We know of nothing better nor half as good as what we have found in the Word of God." 10
Russell reworked his chronology and moved the date for the end of the world up to 1915. After the end failed to materialize in 1915, the end was set for 1918, when "God destroys the churches wholesale and the church members by millions." 11
At the death of C.T. Russell in 1916, J.F. Rutherford took over the role of the `prophet,' proclaiming in 1920 that Millions Now Living Will Never Die in a booklet and lecture by the same name. Rutherford set a new date for the end for 1925, also claiming that it would bring the resurrection of the ancient men of God to the earth, such as Abraham, Isaac, David, etc. So sure was Rutherford of this that he made the following statements:
"Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the apostle in Hebrews chapter 11, to the condition of human perfection." 12
"The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the scriptures than 1914." 13
"Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." 14
Rutherford even had a house built in San Diego for these ancients, and it was deeded to them when it was built! 15 Bearing witness to the ability of the Witnesses to ride out this period of disconfirmation, the house and the prophecy wasn't abandoned until 1943, when it was promptly sold. The Witnesses were later told that it was "built for brother Rutherford's use." 16
Rutherford kept the Witnesses occupied with proselytizing during the thirties. As with the flying saucer cult, Rutherford began teaching that there was some great significance in their disappointment over the disconfirmed prophecies and that the dates were somehow important, but they eventually decided against setting dates:
"There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1914, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time. Later the faithful learned that these dates were definitely fixed in the Scriptures; and they also learned to quit fixing dates for the future and predicting what would come to pass on a certain date ..." 17
The disappointment didn't last long, however. The outbreak of World War II was seen as the beginning of Armageddon. An in-house publication of the Watchtower stated in 1940:
"The Kingdom is here, the King is enthroned. Armageddon is just ahead. The glorious reign of Christ that shall bring blessings to the world will immediately follow. Therefore the great climax has been reached. Tribulation has fallen upon those who stand by the Lord." 18
The Watchtower of September 15, 1941 (p . 288) even stated that we are "in the remaining months before Armageddon." Armageddon fever was at an all-time high. Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, former member of the Watchtower's Bethel family, gives us a glimpse of the air of expectancy:
"So firmly did Jehovah's Witnesses believe this to be true that there were those who, in 1944, refused to get their teeth filled, postponing all care of their bodies until God saw to their regeneration in His New World. (One zealous Witness I knew carried a supply of cloves to alleviate the pain of an aching molar which she did not wish to have treated by her dentist, since the time was so short till Jehovah would provide a new and perfect one. To this day, I associate the fragrance of cloves with the imminence of disaster.)" 19
A New Date - 1975
The end came for Rutherford in 1942, as he passed away and N.H. Knorr took his place as the key member of the faithful and discreet slave, dispensing prophetic messages to the Witnesses. However, more credit is due to Frederick W. Franz, Knorr's vice-president, for the prediction of 1975 that first appeared in Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God (1966). Exercising caution in stating that this new date would definitely be the end, Franz (through his public lectures and Watchtower articles) made statements such as "according to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E." 20 Any Jehovah's Witness knew that the end of 6000 years meant the beginning of the millennium of Christ's reign. The Awake! magazine of October 8, 1968 (p. 14) stated, "How fitting it would be for God, following this pattern, to end man's misery after six thousand years of human rule and follow it with his glorious Kingdom rule for a thousand years!"
In lectures given to the members of the headquarters staff in New York, Franz stated (regarding the end) that "we don't know now if it will be weeks or months," before a crowd of 2000 Witnesses. 21 Many other statements were made in print. One traveling overseer even gave a public talk indicating it would be a total lack of faith to doubt that 1975 would be the end! 22 Franz became the fourth president of the Watchtower a year later.
Unlike the flying saucer cult and the Millerites, the Watchtower was at first unwilling to accept blame for the disconfirmation, shifting it to "over-zealous brothers." Many Witnesses, however, were outraged and the Watchtower finally accepted much of the blame publicly.
Friends of those who were Jehovah's Witnesses often noted the changes in their lives as 1975 approached. Janice Godlove relates this regarding her JW brother and sister-in-law:
"As 1975 approached, the signs of tension increased. Strange bits and pieces of the family atmosphere came to our attention. There was an almost morbid fascination with flocks of birds gathering in the fall. We were given all of their canned goods since they wouldn't need them anymore. An access panel had been cut in the wall behind their washing machine and the boys (who were 5 and 3 at the time) were told to run to the kitchen and hide if they heard screams. Bill was so disappointed by the failure of 1975 that he attempted suicide. But the tract we left by his hospital bed went unread and the family remained in the organization." 23
Today, 1975 is played down, but no recent reason is officially given for the disconfirmation, nor is there any further official date on the horizon. Some recent converts are even unaware of the 1975 expectations.
A Pattern for the Future
A pattern emerges when we examine the growth figures before and after each disconfirmation. Typically, there was a rapid growth in numbers at least two years before the prophetic date, followed by a falling away of some (viewed as a "cleansing" of the organization of the unfaithful), then another growth spurt as a new emphasis on evangelism was put forward.
It may seem incomprehensible how the Witnesses could ignore the implications of each disconfirmation. Outsiders view the Witnesses as lacking common sense for not leaving the organization after numerous failures. They fail to understand the dynamics of mind control as used by cults. Even many ex-JWs fail to understand that the further disconfirmation of the importance of 1914 and "this generation" will not seriously affect the numbers of those swelling the ranks of the Watchtower. The results of mind control and unquestioning obedience will have the same effect today as it did in Russell's day. His view was, "Where else can we go?" Harrison writes regarding this attitude,
"That, of course, is one of the keys to survival of the organization Russell founded on soft mysticism, glorious visions and worldly disaffection. The Witnesses had nowhere else to go. Their investment in their religion was total; to leave it would have meant spiritual and emotional bankruptcy. They were not equipped to function in a world without certainty. It was their life. To leave it would be a death." 24
This same dependency-unto-death phenomena is at work in thousands of cults all over the world. People wondered at Jonestown: "Why didn't they leave when they saw what Jim Jones was becoming?" The people of Jonestown answered by their actions, "Where else would we go?" They had burned their bridges to follow their Messiah unto death.
Over 110 years and several failed prophecies later, the Watchtower movement is testimony enough that failed predictions do not mean the dissolution of a cult following. The failure of 1975 resulted in a decrease of less than 2%. 25 The Watchtower will always be able to develop clever rationalizations regarding their changing dates, as their history documents. Today, the Watchtower grows at a rate of about 5% per year worldwide, with over 3.7 million door knockers and over 9 million sympathizers! 26
When the dissolution of the Watchtower movement comes, as it inevitably will, it will more likely be due to dissension from within than from the disconfirmation of prophecy. Until that day, let us hope and pray that the eyes of many Witnesses will be opened up to the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ and come to Him.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies (New York: Doubleday, 1984), p. 67.
2. In brief, Festinger explains the cognitive dissonance theory thusly:
"Dissonance and consonance are relations among cognitions that is, among opinions, beliefs, knowledge of the environment, and knowledge of one's own actions and feelings. Two opinions, or beliefs, or items of knowledge are dissonant with each other if they do not fit together that is, if they are inconsistent, or if, considering only the particular two items, one does not follow from the other. For example, a cigarette smoker who believes that smoking is bad for his health has an opinion that is dissonant with the knowledge that he is continuing to smoke. He may have many other opinions, beliefs, or items of knowledge that are consonant with continuing to smoke but the dissonance nevertheless exists too.
"Dissonance produces discomfort and, correspondingly, there will arise pressures to reduce or eliminate the dissonance. Attempts to reduce dissonance represent the observable manifestations that dissonance exists. Such attempts may take any or all of three forms. The person may try to change one or more of the beliefs, opinions, or behaviors involved in the dissonance; to acquire new information or beliefs that will increase the existing consonance and thus cause the total dissonance to be reduced; or to forget or reduce the importance of those cognitions that are in a dissonant relationship." (p. 25-26)
"Alternatively, the dissonance would be reduced or eliminated if the members of a movement effectively blind themselves to the fact that the prediction has not been fulfilled. But most people, including members of such movements, are in touch with reality and cannot simply blot out of their cognition such an unequivocal and undeniable fact. They can try to ignore it, however, and they usually do try. They may convince themselves that the date was wrong but that the prediction will, after all, be shortly confirmed; or they may even set another date as the Millerites did.... Rationalization can reduce dissonance somewhat. For rationalization to be fully effective, support from others is needed to make the explanation or the revision seem correct. Fortunately, the disappointed believer can usually turn to the others in the same movement, who have the same dissonance and the same pressures to reduce it. Support for the new explanation is, hence, forthcoming and the members of the movement can recover somewhat from the shock of the disconfirmation." --Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter, When Prophecy Fails, (New York: Harper and Row, 1956), pp. 27, 28.
3. ibid., p. 3.
4. ibid., p. 28.
5. ibid., p. 208.
6. ibid., p. 22; quoted from Hiram Edson, fragment of ms. on his life and experience, pp. 8,9, quoted in Francis D. Nichol, The Midnight Cry (Tacoma Park, Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Company, 1944), pp. 247-248.
7. M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), p. 18.
8. ibid., pp. 34.
9. Joseph Rutherford, Light, Book I (New York: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1930), p. 194.
10. The Watch Tower, 12/15/14, p. 377.
11. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (WTBTS), The Finished Mystery, 1917 edition, p. 485.
12. WTBTS, Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, p. 89.
13. The Watch Tower, 9/1/22, p. 262.
14. ibid., 4/1/23, p. 106.
15. Consolation (WTBTS), 5/27/42, p. 3, also Golden Age (WTBTS), 3/19/30, p. 406, 407.
16. WTBTS, 1975 Yearbook, p. 194.
17. WTBTS, Vindication, Book I, 1931, pp. 338, 339.
18. WTBTS, The Messenger, 9/1/40, p. 6.
19. Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Visions of Glory (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), p. 16.
20. WTBTS, Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God, 1966, p. 29.
21. F.W. Franz, verbatim as quoted by Randall Watters, present at the March 2, 1975 graduating class of the students of Gilead school. See The Watchtower, 5/1/75, p. 285.
22. Message given by C. Sunutko, Circuit Overseer, in 1967 (tape available).
23. The Bethel Ministries Newsletter, November, 1987, in a letter by Janice Godlove respecting her brother and sisterinlaw.
24. Harrison, p. 167.
25. Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983), p. 212.
26. WTBTS, 1990 Yearbook, pp. 4041.
QUOTE (newguy+)
I only asked the "silly question" to hopefully make a point. The point is that Christians don't go around hurting people. The Crusades, Inquisitions, Hitler, etc. are NOT true representations of Christ/Christianity and yet they have been cited by several people on this forum in the past to denounce Christ/Christianity. I'm merely trying to make a distinction between what is true and what is patently false. There are those who have claimed that anyone who simply says they are a Christian is a Christian.
Who is a Christian?
newguy, I know you can answer this question, but I am sure there will be many Christians(?) to whom your answer will not be acceptable. You are in effect creating your own definition and "disowning" those who don't fit this definition.
There are many flavors within Christianity, each with their own "real" definition of the word Christian.
Who is a Christian?
newguy, I know you can answer this question, but I am sure there will be many Christians(?) to whom your answer will not be acceptable. You are in effect creating your own definition and "disowning" those who don't fit this definition.
There are many flavors within Christianity, each with their own "real" definition of the word Christian.
QUOTE (wiktionary+)
Christian (plural Christians)
(Christianity) A person who is a member of the Christian religion, or of a culture based on the Christian religion.
(Christianity) An individual who seeks to live their life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ.
But the values taught by Christ (supposedly) are interpreted differently by different sects. How do we determine which is true?
(Christianity) A person who is a member of the Christian religion, or of a culture based on the Christian religion.
(Christianity) An individual who seeks to live their life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ.
But the values taught by Christ (supposedly) are interpreted differently by different sects. How do we determine which is true?
QUOTE (newguy+)
I doubt that the ones who are so free to label everyone a Christian would show that same freedom when it comes to documented frauds within the scientific community. Are frauds "scientists"? Are all "scientists" therefore frauds? That's the type of garbage reasoning that some have postulated in regards to Christ/Christianity.
This is a good point. There may be people who claim to be scientists, but are not using the scientific method in practice.
Who is a Scientist?
This is a good point. There may be people who claim to be scientists, but are not using the scientific method in practice.
Who is a Scientist?
QUOTE (wiktionary+)
scientist (plural scientists)
One whose activities make use of the scientific method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A scientist may be involved in original research, or make use of the results of the research of others.
For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it."
"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion!
Some Christians do.
This is an excerpt of Pope Urban's decree which launched the Crusades. (http://www.templarhistory.com/urbanii.html) Not that Muslims didn't do then what they are doing now. But so are people who are calling themselves Christians. The stricter the parameters of true or pure Christianity, the more people there are who are not as Christian as they say (or think). And can I even say that? Are there levels within Christianity, or is it 'yes or no'? If you have to be like Jesus to be a Christian, then nobody is a Christian. His apostles were nothing like Him; they were also poor learners given their teacher: they thought He needed defending in the garden? That was at the end of His ministry! OK sorry for the tangent, but you did present a point, and by that point it's very hard for me to see Pope Urban as a Christian (as well as some I know).
Whereas I could never agree with your first comment, I am glad for your second. The less judgement the better, if I know my theology. I fear you have opened up Pandora's Box though with your religious affiliation. I too have had some unfortunate episodes with JW's, but for two years I worked with two JW's as a team, with no problem at all and a fine aquaintenceship with both. You're obviously very even-tempered - experience? - so good luck...
Whereas I could never agree with your first comment, I am glad for your second. The less judgement the better, if I know my theology. I fear you have opened up Pandora's Box though with your religious affiliation. I too have had some unfortunate episodes with JW's, but for two years I worked with two JW's as a team, with no problem at all and a fine aquaintenceship with both. You're obviously very even-tempered - experience? - so good luck...
Please let me know your definition for the following
1) Who is a Christian?
2) Who is a Scientist?
Hi vkamath - ships passing in the night again -
1) one who follows the teachings of the Christ, and nothing else.
2) one who uses the scientific method to seek his aims with impartiality and deference to the data yielded.
Of course if you asked me this last week the words and phrasing would be different but the spirit of it would be the same - uh - I mean the gist of it.
One whose activities make use of the scientific method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A scientist may be involved in original research, or make use of the results of the research of others.
QUOTE (wiktionary+)
scientific method (generally referred to in the definite, as the scientific method)
Wikipedia has an article on:
Scientific method(sciences) A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.
But, the definition is clear. There is no scope for a different interpretation.
Wikipedia has an article on:
Scientific method(sciences) A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.
But, the definition is clear. There is no scope for a different interpretation.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Who is a Christian?
newguy, I know you can answer this question, but I am sure there will be many Christians(?) to whom your answer will not be acceptable. You are in effect creating your own definition and "disowning" those who don't fit this definition.
There are many flavors within Christianity, each with their own "real" definition of the word Christian.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none
Christ
O.E. crist, from L. Christus, from Gk. khristos "the anointed" (translation of Heb. mashiah, see messiah), from khriein "to rub, anoint," title given to Jesus of Nazareth. The L. term drove out O.E. hćland "healer" as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus. A title, treated as a proper name in O.E., but not regularly capitalized until 17c. Pronunciation with long -i- is result of Ir. missionary work in England, 7c.-8c. The Ch- form, regular since c.1500, was rare before. Christmas is O.E. Cristes mćsse and retains original vowel sound; Father Christmas first attested in a carol attributed to Richard Smart, Rector of Plymtree (Devon) from 1435-77. Christmas tree first attested 1835 in Amer.Eng., from Ger. Weihnachtsbaum. Christmas cards first designed 1843, popular by 1860s.
vkamath: As soundhertz recently stated accurately, "Christ" is NOT Jesus' last name. It is His title. "Christ" comes from the Greek word "khristos" which means "anointed". In the Bible, the "anointing" is always symobolic of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. There are at least two distinguishing marks of a real Christian...holiness and truth. Holiness and truth are NOT left up to personal interpretation for those who profess to be Christians. The scriptures clearly define both terms in relation to God and His people. I would suggest to you that those who "miss" God's definition have "missed" God Himself and have therefore never truly been "born again" of the Spirit of God. You might counter and say that "truth" is subjective. To this I would simply respond that through open dialogue and a little research, it can clearly be seen who is in error and who is actually approved of God to handle His Word. For example, I've recently posted something for PhilP to hopefully ponder...let's hear his "defense" and see if it holds up under scrutiny or not. Gotta run out of state... Talk to you later.
newguy, I know you can answer this question, but I am sure there will be many Christians(?) to whom your answer will not be acceptable. You are in effect creating your own definition and "disowning" those who don't fit this definition.
There are many flavors within Christianity, each with their own "real" definition of the word Christian.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none
Christ
O.E. crist, from L. Christus, from Gk. khristos "the anointed" (translation of Heb. mashiah, see messiah), from khriein "to rub, anoint," title given to Jesus of Nazareth. The L. term drove out O.E. hćland "healer" as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus. A title, treated as a proper name in O.E., but not regularly capitalized until 17c. Pronunciation with long -i- is result of Ir. missionary work in England, 7c.-8c. The Ch- form, regular since c.1500, was rare before. Christmas is O.E. Cristes mćsse and retains original vowel sound; Father Christmas first attested in a carol attributed to Richard Smart, Rector of Plymtree (Devon) from 1435-77. Christmas tree first attested 1835 in Amer.Eng., from Ger. Weihnachtsbaum. Christmas cards first designed 1843, popular by 1860s.
vkamath: As soundhertz recently stated accurately, "Christ" is NOT Jesus' last name. It is His title. "Christ" comes from the Greek word "khristos" which means "anointed". In the Bible, the "anointing" is always symobolic of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. There are at least two distinguishing marks of a real Christian...holiness and truth. Holiness and truth are NOT left up to personal interpretation for those who profess to be Christians. The scriptures clearly define both terms in relation to God and His people. I would suggest to you that those who "miss" God's definition have "missed" God Himself and have therefore never truly been "born again" of the Spirit of God. You might counter and say that "truth" is subjective. To this I would simply respond that through open dialogue and a little research, it can clearly be seen who is in error and who is actually approved of God to handle His Word. For example, I've recently posted something for PhilP to hopefully ponder...let's hear his "defense" and see if it holds up under scrutiny or not. Gotta run out of state... Talk to you later.
PhilP, soundhertz,
Please let me know your definition for the following
1) Who is a Christian?
2) Who is a Scientist?
Please let me know your definition for the following
1) Who is a Christian?
2) Who is a Scientist?
First let me start by stating that I am both a Christian and a man of science. I see no conflict between them. If God made the universe, the only material he had for creation was his own energy. Thus every atom and smote of energy is but a part of God. God established the laws of science that govern the universe, and God does not break his own laws for the benifit of humans. Lastly I see the study of science as just another path on the way to understanding God.
That being said, I would like to make a few comments to PhilP about the Jehovah's Witnesses.
PhilP
Normaly I would never comment on a specific religion, I feel it is in poor taste to do so, However you opened this can of worms. I have been blacklisted, I guess thats the right term, by the Jehovah Witnesses in my area, none of them will ever approach my door. I have converted every one that has come to my door away from the Jehovah Witnesses church, if they are willing to listen. Their understanding of the bible is flawed, and at times even at odds with the bible.
The errors even start with their choice of a name. Jehovah is not, never was, and never will be the name of God. The name Jehovah does not appear in any of the oringinal texts, nor in the oringinal language. It does not appear till the first translations were made and put into print. Here is "The rest of the story"
Have you ever noticed how the chapter and verse headings in the bible sometimes appear in the wrong place? Some times they start in the middle of a story, or paragraph, and other illogical places. When an early bible draft was being delivered to the printers, the person who delivered it put those in. While on the journey, he got drunk on wine, and the placement of chapter and verse headings suffered from his drunken state. But it arrived at the printers that way, and we have been stuck with it ever since. This was but the least of his errors though. It also bothered him that God was refered to by so many differant names in the bible, so he changed it. He made an anagram of all the various names and titles for God and came up with the term Jehovah, which he used to replace all the other terms used for God. But it arrived at the printers this way, and we have been stuck with it ever since. I wonder what part of "do not change one dot or jot of the word of God" he failed to understand.
So the term Jehovah came from a drunken stuper, yet Jehovah Witnesses claim that this is the one true name of God. Hogwash, Jehovah Witnesses can't even get the origin of their name right. The true name of God is a secret that has not been shared, only hinted at in the bible. But you need to know Hebrew to even catch the hints, thus the term Jehovah has done more to hide the true name of God than even the efforts of the Jews to conceal it in the original text. So when it comes to making the name of God known, the Jehovah Witnesses have done more harm than good. The list goes on and on, I would need to write a book to cover the errors they have made.
They are a good example of what happens when you place the words of man above the word of God. They started as a bible study group. The founders made a few errors due to there lack of knowledge of history, and they had no knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, which lead to more errors. The followers who came after them, elevated them to such a degree that the possability that they may have made a mistake could not even be considered, for they were "divinely inspired" Thus their followers have perpepuated their mistakes, and even enlarged them.
In their defence, they are not the first religious sect to make such an error. For the most part they are good, honest, God fearing people. They are one of the few religions with an very active ministry that promotes the word of God, but not the only one as you said. So PhilP, please do not take this as a personal attack, I am sure you are a good person whose heart is in the right place. I just have a problem with sects that claim they are the one true religion. I also have a problem with sects that go against the bible they claim to follow, even if their mistakes are due to lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge can be remedied, ignorance is not an excuse. Also I am sure God will not hold these mistakes against them, for they are pure in the intent of their hearts and desire to searve God. After all, God judges us on the intentions of our heart, not our skill in ancient history and languages, as I do, but then I can not see the intentions of the heart. Many Johovah Witnesses will no doubt make it into heaven, right beside many of those who they told were going to hell, and some may go to hell despite being Johovah Witnesses. Choice of religion has less effect than the intentions of our hearts when it comes to who makes it into heaven.
If you wish to promote God, please do so, but keep specific religious groups out of it. It might push someones button and cause responces that are detrimental to your goal of spreading the word.
I will not comment on this farther, as I said, it is in poor taste to target a specific belief. I would not have done so if you had not brought specific beliefs and claims into this thread.
That being said, I would like to make a few comments to PhilP about the Jehovah's Witnesses.
PhilP
Normaly I would never comment on a specific religion, I feel it is in poor taste to do so, However you opened this can of worms. I have been blacklisted, I guess thats the right term, by the Jehovah Witnesses in my area, none of them will ever approach my door. I have converted every one that has come to my door away from the Jehovah Witnesses church, if they are willing to listen. Their understanding of the bible is flawed, and at times even at odds with the bible.
The errors even start with their choice of a name. Jehovah is not, never was, and never will be the name of God. The name Jehovah does not appear in any of the oringinal texts, nor in the oringinal language. It does not appear till the first translations were made and put into print. Here is "The rest of the story"
Have you ever noticed how the chapter and verse headings in the bible sometimes appear in the wrong place? Some times they start in the middle of a story, or paragraph, and other illogical places. When an early bible draft was being delivered to the printers, the person who delivered it put those in. While on the journey, he got drunk on wine, and the placement of chapter and verse headings suffered from his drunken state. But it arrived at the printers that way, and we have been stuck with it ever since. This was but the least of his errors though. It also bothered him that God was refered to by so many differant names in the bible, so he changed it. He made an anagram of all the various names and titles for God and came up with the term Jehovah, which he used to replace all the other terms used for God. But it arrived at the printers this way, and we have been stuck with it ever since. I wonder what part of "do not change one dot or jot of the word of God" he failed to understand.
So the term Jehovah came from a drunken stuper, yet Jehovah Witnesses claim that this is the one true name of God. Hogwash, Jehovah Witnesses can't even get the origin of their name right. The true name of God is a secret that has not been shared, only hinted at in the bible. But you need to know Hebrew to even catch the hints, thus the term Jehovah has done more to hide the true name of God than even the efforts of the Jews to conceal it in the original text. So when it comes to making the name of God known, the Jehovah Witnesses have done more harm than good. The list goes on and on, I would need to write a book to cover the errors they have made.
They are a good example of what happens when you place the words of man above the word of God. They started as a bible study group. The founders made a few errors due to there lack of knowledge of history, and they had no knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, which lead to more errors. The followers who came after them, elevated them to such a degree that the possability that they may have made a mistake could not even be considered, for they were "divinely inspired" Thus their followers have perpepuated their mistakes, and even enlarged them.
In their defence, they are not the first religious sect to make such an error. For the most part they are good, honest, God fearing people. They are one of the few religions with an very active ministry that promotes the word of God, but not the only one as you said. So PhilP, please do not take this as a personal attack, I am sure you are a good person whose heart is in the right place. I just have a problem with sects that claim they are the one true religion. I also have a problem with sects that go against the bible they claim to follow, even if their mistakes are due to lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge can be remedied, ignorance is not an excuse. Also I am sure God will not hold these mistakes against them, for they are pure in the intent of their hearts and desire to searve God. After all, God judges us on the intentions of our heart, not our skill in ancient history and languages, as I do, but then I can not see the intentions of the heart. Many Johovah Witnesses will no doubt make it into heaven, right beside many of those who they told were going to hell, and some may go to hell despite being Johovah Witnesses. Choice of religion has less effect than the intentions of our hearts when it comes to who makes it into heaven.
If you wish to promote God, please do so, but keep specific religious groups out of it. It might push someones button and cause responces that are detrimental to your goal of spreading the word.
I will not comment on this farther, as I said, it is in poor taste to target a specific belief. I would not have done so if you had not brought specific beliefs and claims into this thread.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
But the values taught by Christ (supposedly) are interpreted differently by different sects. How do we determine which is true?
vkamath: Do you really seek an answer to this question? If so, please give an example of a "value" that was taught by Christ that is interpreted differently by different sects. Thanks.
Aireal: Do you have any documentation of what you claimed in regards to the whole "drunken stupor" thing? If so, please present it. Thanks.
vkamath: Do you really seek an answer to this question? If so, please give an example of a "value" that was taught by Christ that is interpreted differently by different sects. Thanks.
Aireal: Do you have any documentation of what you claimed in regards to the whole "drunken stupor" thing? If so, please present it. Thanks.
QUOTE
The point is that Christians don't go around hurting people.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The point is that Christians don't go around hurting people. |
For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it."
"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion!
Some Christians do.
This is an excerpt of Pope Urban's decree which launched the Crusades. (http://www.templarhistory.com/urbanii.html) Not that Muslims didn't do then what they are doing now. But so are people who are calling themselves Christians. The stricter the parameters of true or pure Christianity, the more people there are who are not as Christian as they say (or think). And can I even say that? Are there levels within Christianity, or is it 'yes or no'? If you have to be like Jesus to be a Christian, then nobody is a Christian. His apostles were nothing like Him; they were also poor learners given their teacher: they thought He needed defending in the garden? That was at the end of His ministry! OK sorry for the tangent, but you did present a point, and by that point it's very hard for me to see Pope Urban as a Christian (as well as some I know).
QUOTE
What we do say is that all those who proudly and stubbornly refuse to submit to God's rulership will not be saved. But we are not in any position to judge who these might be.
Whereas I could never agree with your first comment, I am glad for your second. The less judgement the better, if I know my theology. I fear you have opened up Pandora's Box though with your religious affiliation. I too have had some unfortunate episodes with JW's, but for two years I worked with two JW's as a team, with no problem at all and a fine aquaintenceship with both. You're obviously very even-tempered - experience?
- so good luck...QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What we do say is that all those who proudly and stubbornly refuse to submit to God's rulership will not be saved. But we are not in any position to judge who these might be. |
Whereas I could never agree with your first comment, I am glad for your second. The less judgement the better, if I know my theology. I fear you have opened up Pandora's Box though with your religious affiliation. I too have had some unfortunate episodes with JW's, but for two years I worked with two JW's as a team, with no problem at all and a fine aquaintenceship with both. You're obviously very even-tempered - experience?
- so good luck...Please let me know your definition for the following
1) Who is a Christian?
2) Who is a Scientist?
Hi vkamath - ships passing in the night again -
1) one who follows the teachings of the Christ, and nothing else.
2) one who uses the scientific method to seek his aims with impartiality and deference to the data yielded.
Of course if you asked me this last week the words and phrasing would be different but the spirit of it would be the same - uh - I mean the gist of it.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
This is an excerpt of Pope Urban's decree which launched the Crusades.
soundhertz: Since you're familiar with my posting history, I trust you already know what I think about the Papacy/Vatican. They are the very anti-Christ of scripture.
What scriptures? They were written after he supposedly died.
Or do you mean the Jewish book of religion? This superstitious stuff is confusing. Fair dinkum (an Australian colloquialism used, in this case, as a statement of exasperation), the third millennium CE and people still believe in fairies.
Physfan
What scriptures? They were written after he supposedly died.
Or do you mean the Jewish book of religion? This superstitious stuff is confusing. Fair dinkum (an Australian colloquialism used, in this case, as a statement of exasperation), the third millennium CE and people still believe in fairies.
Physfan
Physfan: After His resurrection, while walking on the road to Emmaus with two men who did not yet believe that He rose from the dead, Jesus said the following:
"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken, Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."(Luke 24:25-27)
"Moses"(the Law), "all the prophets" and "all the scriptures"(the Old Testament) speak to us(those who are truly listening, anyway) of Jesus Christ. Had I started my quote that I gave to soundhertz from the gospel of Luke one verse earlier, you would have noticed the following:
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."(Luke 24:44-45)
"The law of Moses", "the prophets" and "the psalms" speak concerning Jesus Christ. I'll be happy to elaborate, if need be. You'll probably feel the urge to quote some "violent" passage from the Old Testament and ask me how that could possibly pertain to Christ. That's fine by me. Talk to you later.
P.S. I posted this recently on the "What source for self-esteem?" thread. I thought it was pertinent here, in light of your question.
What scriptures? They were written after he supposedly died.
Or do you mean the Jewish book of religion? This superstitious stuff is confusing. Fair dinkum (an Australian colloquialism used, in this case, as a statement of exasperation), the third millennium CE and people still believe in fairies.
Physfan
Physfan: After His resurrection, while walking on the road to Emmaus with two men who did not yet believe that He rose from the dead, Jesus said the following:
"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken, Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."(Luke 24:25-27)
"Moses"(the Law), "all the prophets" and "all the scriptures"(the Old Testament) speak to us(those who are truly listening, anyway) of Jesus Christ. Had I started my quote that I gave to soundhertz from the gospel of Luke one verse earlier, you would have noticed the following:
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."(Luke 24:44-45)
"The law of Moses", "the prophets" and "the psalms" speak concerning Jesus Christ. I'll be happy to elaborate, if need be. You'll probably feel the urge to quote some "violent" passage from the Old Testament and ask me how that could possibly pertain to Christ. That's fine by me. Talk to you later.
P.S. I posted this recently on the "What source for self-esteem?" thread. I thought it was pertinent here, in light of your question.
I've walked WITH CHRIST for almost 18 years now. He is exactly Who the scriptures say He is. When I taught Sunday school, I always began my first lesson by showing the students the border of a 24 piece jigsaw puzzle. By just viewing the border, it was difficult to tell what image was actually depicted on the finished work. I repeatedly had people(whether children or adults) guess that the finished puzzle depicted a cloud, a bunny rabbit, etc. The finished puzzle actually depicted A LAMB. Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Revelation 13:8) In the volume of the book, it is written of HIM(Hebrews 10:7). When I did jigsaw puzzles as a child and I couldn't properly place "a piece", I cheated and I looked at the picture on the jigsaw puzzle's box. I would heartily suggest that anyone who SINCERELY wants to know what the Bible is about "cheat" and look at Christ BEFORE picking up a Bible. The one who SINCERELY does this will not only "see Christ", but hopefully genuinely be reconciled unto God through Him.
P.P.S. By the way, I don't "believe in fairies". In fact, I sell t-shirts(and other things) for a living. The company whose shirts I mainly carry has MANY different fairy designs available. They are, YEAR AFTER YEAR, the company's number 1 sellers. I have NEVER carried these designs, NOR have I placed them on my website. Just for the record. Take care.
soundhertz: Since you're familiar with my posting history, I trust you already know what I think about the Papacy/Vatican. They are the very anti-Christ of scripture.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
Are there levels within Christianity, or is it 'yes or no'? If you have to be like Jesus to be a Christian, then nobody is a Christian. His apostles were nothing like Him; they were also poor learners given their teacher: they thought He needed defending in the garden? That was at the end of His ministry!
Probably without even realizing it, you have proved my point as to who is really a Christian. Please consider what Jesus said to His apostles after His resurrection from the dead:
"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."(Luke 24:49)
Although Jesus' apostles personally walked with Him for approximately 3 1/2 years, He still had to give them understanding of the scriptures and He specifically told them not to do anything UNTIL they were "endued with power from on high" or UNTIL they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. The apostles were totally different men AFTER the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit became their ever-present teacher and also gave them the power that they needed to fulfill the task set before them. Man's efforts ALONE will always fall short. Simply seeking to adhere to the teachings of Christ apart from the help of the indwelling Spirit of God does NOT make one a Christian.
Probably without even realizing it, you have proved my point as to who is really a Christian. Please consider what Jesus said to His apostles after His resurrection from the dead:
"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."(Luke 24:49)
Although Jesus' apostles personally walked with Him for approximately 3 1/2 years, He still had to give them understanding of the scriptures and He specifically told them not to do anything UNTIL they were "endued with power from on high" or UNTIL they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. The apostles were totally different men AFTER the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit became their ever-present teacher and also gave them the power that they needed to fulfill the task set before them. Man's efforts ALONE will always fall short. Simply seeking to adhere to the teachings of Christ apart from the help of the indwelling Spirit of God does NOT make one a Christian.
QUOTE
Although Jesus' apostles personally walked with Him for approximately 3 1/2 years, He still had to give them understanding of the scriptures
What scriptures? They were written after he supposedly died.
Or do you mean the Jewish book of religion? This superstitious stuff is confusing. Fair dinkum (an Australian colloquialism used, in this case, as a statement of exasperation), the third millennium CE and people still believe in fairies.
Physfan
Newguy
Many years ago I was in the process to become a minister. The story I related was in my textbook on apologetics. I never completed the process to become a minister, and did not keep the text book, Sorry.
Many sources mention the errors in chapter and verse headings and how they got in the manuscript on the way to the printers. Books like my Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament by Kohlenberger and printed by Regency Referance Libary mention the "problems" with the name of God. But the only one that mentioned he was drunk at the time was my old apologetics textbook. So thats the kind of book that would be the best source to find it in.
Apologetics was the course that taught you how to defend the faith from attackers. If an argument was used against the bible at any time, somewhere, someone wrote down how to refrute their argument. The origin of the name Jehovah was one of the "errors" found in the bible by opponents, as was the poor choice of chapter and verse headings. So the answers to those who pointed out such "errors" were covered in that course.
It has been near twenty years since I took that course, I rememberd that part because I got such a laugh out of it the first time I read it. Never thought I would use anything from that course till people started knoking on my door in retirement. I coverted the first few that came to my door. Now when they come down my street, they skip my house. Which suits me fine, don't preach to me and I won't preach back.
Sorry I could not help you more.
Many years ago I was in the process to become a minister. The story I related was in my textbook on apologetics. I never completed the process to become a minister, and did not keep the text book, Sorry.
Many sources mention the errors in chapter and verse headings and how they got in the manuscript on the way to the printers. Books like my Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament by Kohlenberger and printed by Regency Referance Libary mention the "problems" with the name of God. But the only one that mentioned he was drunk at the time was my old apologetics textbook. So thats the kind of book that would be the best source to find it in.
Apologetics was the course that taught you how to defend the faith from attackers. If an argument was used against the bible at any time, somewhere, someone wrote down how to refrute their argument. The origin of the name Jehovah was one of the "errors" found in the bible by opponents, as was the poor choice of chapter and verse headings. So the answers to those who pointed out such "errors" were covered in that course.
It has been near twenty years since I took that course, I rememberd that part because I got such a laugh out of it the first time I read it. Never thought I would use anything from that course till people started knoking on my door in retirement. I coverted the first few that came to my door. Now when they come down my street, they skip my house. Which suits me fine, don't preach to me and I won't preach back.
Sorry I could not help you more.
QUOTE (Physfan+Oct 19 2006, 02:40 AM)
QUOTE
Although Jesus' apostles personally walked with Him for approximately 3 1/2 years, He still had to give them understanding of the scriptures.
What scriptures? They were written after he supposedly died.
Or do you mean the Jewish book of religion? This superstitious stuff is confusing. Fair dinkum (an Australian colloquialism used, in this case, as a statement of exasperation), the third millennium CE and people still believe in fairies.
Physfan
Physfan: After His resurrection, while walking on the road to Emmaus with two men who did not yet believe that He rose from the dead, Jesus said the following:
"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken, Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."(Luke 24:25-27)
"Moses"(the Law), "all the prophets" and "all the scriptures"(the Old Testament) speak to us(those who are truly listening, anyway) of Jesus Christ. Had I started my quote that I gave to soundhertz from the gospel of Luke one verse earlier, you would have noticed the following:
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."(Luke 24:44-45)
"The law of Moses", "the prophets" and "the psalms" speak concerning Jesus Christ. I'll be happy to elaborate, if need be. You'll probably feel the urge to quote some "violent" passage from the Old Testament and ask me how that could possibly pertain to Christ. That's fine by me. Talk to you later.
P.S. I posted this recently on the "What source for self-esteem?" thread. I thought it was pertinent here, in light of your question.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Although Jesus' apostles personally walked with Him for approximately 3 1/2 years, He still had to give them understanding of the scriptures. |
What scriptures? They were written after he supposedly died.
Or do you mean the Jewish book of religion? This superstitious stuff is confusing. Fair dinkum (an Australian colloquialism used, in this case, as a statement of exasperation), the third millennium CE and people still believe in fairies.
Physfan
Physfan: After His resurrection, while walking on the road to Emmaus with two men who did not yet believe that He rose from the dead, Jesus said the following:
"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken, Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."(Luke 24:25-27)
"Moses"(the Law), "all the prophets" and "all the scriptures"(the Old Testament) speak to us(those who are truly listening, anyway) of Jesus Christ. Had I started my quote that I gave to soundhertz from the gospel of Luke one verse earlier, you would have noticed the following:
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."(Luke 24:44-45)
"The law of Moses", "the prophets" and "the psalms" speak concerning Jesus Christ. I'll be happy to elaborate, if need be. You'll probably feel the urge to quote some "violent" passage from the Old Testament and ask me how that could possibly pertain to Christ. That's fine by me. Talk to you later.
P.S. I posted this recently on the "What source for self-esteem?" thread. I thought it was pertinent here, in light of your question.
I've walked WITH CHRIST for almost 18 years now. He is exactly Who the scriptures say He is. When I taught Sunday school, I always began my first lesson by showing the students the border of a 24 piece jigsaw puzzle. By just viewing the border, it was difficult to tell what image was actually depicted on the finished work. I repeatedly had people(whether children or adults) guess that the finished puzzle depicted a cloud, a bunny rabbit, etc. The finished puzzle actually depicted A LAMB. Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Revelation 13:8) In the volume of the book, it is written of HIM(Hebrews 10:7). When I did jigsaw puzzles as a child and I couldn't properly place "a piece", I cheated and I looked at the picture on the jigsaw puzzle's box. I would heartily suggest that anyone who SINCERELY wants to know what the Bible is about "cheat" and look at Christ BEFORE picking up a Bible. The one who SINCERELY does this will not only "see Christ", but hopefully genuinely be reconciled unto God through Him.
P.P.S. By the way, I don't "believe in fairies". In fact, I sell t-shirts(and other things) for a living. The company whose shirts I mainly carry has MANY different fairy designs available. They are, YEAR AFTER YEAR, the company's number 1 sellers. I have NEVER carried these designs, NOR have I placed them on my website. Just for the record. Take care.
My understanding of the origin of the name Jehovah is as follows. (Reader's digest version.)
Take the Tetragrammaton - YHWH.
Insert the vowels from the words Elohim and Adonai - YeHoWaH.
Oh, and somewhere in translation YHWH became JHVH - JeHoVaH.
I read this in literature from the Watchtower organization. (I would have to go back through my archives to dig up the title of the publication.) But, yeah it sounds a little shakey to me.
Take the Tetragrammaton - YHWH.
Insert the vowels from the words Elohim and Adonai - YeHoWaH.
Oh, and somewhere in translation YHWH became JHVH - JeHoVaH.
I read this in literature from the Watchtower organization. (I would have to go back through my archives to dig up the title of the publication.) But, yeah it sounds a little shakey to me.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Do you really seek an answer to this question? If so, please give an example of a "value" that was taught by Christ that is interpreted differently by different sects. Thanks
For example Mormon fundamentalists practice polygamy. According to them, this is not against the word of Christ.
Another example, the Amish avoid modern technology and consider it to be inherently bad. Their interpretation of Christianity or words of Christ is obviously different from that of other sects.
For example Mormon fundamentalists practice polygamy. According to them, this is not against the word of Christ.
Another example, the Amish avoid modern technology and consider it to be inherently bad. Their interpretation of Christianity or words of Christ is obviously different from that of other sects.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
Hi vkamath - ships passing in the night again -
1) one who follows the teachings of the Christ, and nothing else.
That is a very broad definition you have there.
a) We have a very poor historical account of the teachings of Christ.
b ) It is very open to interpretation. If not we would not have so many Christian sects.
You, newguy and PhilP having your own interpretations on this forum itself.
1) one who follows the teachings of the Christ, and nothing else.
That is a very broad definition you have there.
a) We have a very poor historical account of the teachings of Christ.
b ) It is very open to interpretation. If not we would not have so many Christian sects.
You, newguy and PhilP having your own interpretations on this forum itself.
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 19 2006, 05:20 PM)
QUOTE (newguy+)
Do you really seek an answer to this question? If so, please give an example of a "value" that was taught by Christ that is interpreted differently by different sects. Thanks
For example Mormon fundamentalists practice polygamy. According to them, this is not against the word of Christ.
Another example, the Amish avoid modern technology and consider it to be inherently bad. Their interpretation of Christianity or words of Christ is obviously different from that of other sects.
vkamath: You would really need to give me some basis(scriptural references) for the "beliefs" that you describe. I cannot possibly tell you if something is Biblically accurate or not without a Biblical reference point. I did briefly check up on the Amish "belief" that you mentioned and came up with the following:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/amish3.htm
The world: They believe in remaining quite separate from the rest of the world, physically and socially. Part of this may be caused by the belief that association with others -- often referred to as "The English" -- may be polluting. Part may be because of the intense persecution experienced by their ancestors as a result of government oppression. Amish homes do not draw power from the electrical grid. They feel that that would excessively connect them to the world.
Even if this website is accurately describing the Amish's "belief" regarding electricity/modern technology, it only mentions a "part" of what this "belief" may be based on. The "part" that is mentioned really has nothing to do with Christianity itself. If they are using some scriptures that refer to "worldly associations" as a basis for their "belief", then I would need to know which scriptures they are. Otherwise, I'm kind of "in the dark"...even though I use electricity myself. I hope you understand. Thanks.
Yes it is broad. My point in presenting the denominations of Christianity. I didn't say what they should believe, but what a Christian should be. I would ask newguy and PhilP what the demarcation lines are for Christian criteria. Obviously people who 'sin' can be Christians: the whole idea of religion is (supposedly) to raise one's spiritual level.
When I said "and nothing else" I mean philosophically; I don't mean no career but missionary work, or no non-religious hobbies, etc.,etc. You can even be a scientist - remember it IS a broad palette there, not a restraining one, except when it comes to a philosophy of living and dealing with others. That is where Christian philosophy focuses on - how you live and act with and towards others, including yourself. You can be a paid scientist researching how the strange particle relates to errant bosons while performing goodwill and benevolence to your coworkers and everyone else in your sphere, and as such be a fine Christian. But some Christians will say for instance if you don't go to church every Sunday you can't be a good Christian. The palette is broad with interpretation. However, philosophy is impotent until put in action, and imho there is NO Christianity save for what you do; it's not what you think that counts, it's
what
you
do.
In which case the most succint passage in the Bible for me is not the 10 Commandments, but the Lord's Prayer. It's simple, to the point, covers all bases, and is in no way murky thus allowing for many interpretations. In all the controversy over Biblical passages, this simple delivery is understood universally by all. It passes the test of Occam's Razor. In Biblical chronology, Moses gave the law, but Jesus gave the truth: this is the lexicon of spiritual learning.
Like everyone I have my own interpretations. I'll give one that I would expect both newguy and PhilP to be firmly united on (), against me: I believe that those who follow the teachings of Christ without knowing who Jesus was or even disbelieving in Him will be just as 'rewarded' as Christians. In fact I would be willing to say they were a Christian. Here we go - I don't believe that one needs to be loyal to any religion or Personage at all, only to follow the Spiritual way. In which case I will go so far in my heresy as to say an atheist can be a holy person who does "God's Will" by nothing more than excellent living full of wisdom tolerance and benevolence towards his/her fellows. I believe strongly that professed atheists on this forum can be as full of grace as any good Christian here. Obviously vkamath from many other posts you already know that my view of God is not at all the mainstream one, or even close in any way to them, yet the Biblical reporting of Jesus' ministry I believe happened, including miracles. It may take many many pages of posting to debunk the knee-jerk cries of "mutually exclusive"! and "absolutely daft"! (and am not at all eager to) But I find absolutely no conflict in this, providing you remove the impediments to it. And it's all the impediments that I have no belief in. For this reason Christians would view me as agnostic since I do not believe in all the things I 'must' to grasp God. So I am an agnostic Christian who believes Science and Perfect Mind are not just mutually inclusive, they are inseparable.
Sure I was, and on top of that it was a subtle stab at reconciliation between you and PhilP belief-wise. I like to see people get along.
I also live near to Lancaster county, and have often gone there. I have to say despite people's views of them being different and reluctant to modernize - and they are different - I found those whom I associated with to be of the highest character and integrity, which doesn't shatter as we all have seen.
I was driving around one day some years ago looking for an Amish pie (many have little 'right-off-the-porch' businesses) and sure enough saw the telltale sign on a porch post. Pies, home made root beer, quilts, etc. I stopped to buy a pie, and they were sold out. The Mrs. implored me to stay; she'd get one made and in the oven in a jiffy.
I spent my time happily having a catch with their kids and talking weather lore with the Mr. The delicious pie was soon ready.
Leaving there, I was filled with a lovely warmth from these people. Their Christianity was in full blossom, in the guise of tenderness, joy, peace. I felt like I was visiting Little House on the Prarie, an authentic one, right down to the heart, resonating with great wistfulness for the bygone days we may never see again, except in those rare places like the slowly-going-extinct Amish lands.
For example Mormon fundamentalists practice polygamy. According to them, this is not against the word of Christ.
Another example, the Amish avoid modern technology and consider it to be inherently bad. Their interpretation of Christianity or words of Christ is obviously different from that of other sects.
vkamath: You would really need to give me some basis(scriptural references) for the "beliefs" that you describe. I cannot possibly tell you if something is Biblically accurate or not without a Biblical reference point. I did briefly check up on the Amish "belief" that you mentioned and came up with the following:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/amish3.htm
The world: They believe in remaining quite separate from the rest of the world, physically and socially. Part of this may be caused by the belief that association with others -- often referred to as "The English" -- may be polluting. Part may be because of the intense persecution experienced by their ancestors as a result of government oppression. Amish homes do not draw power from the electrical grid. They feel that that would excessively connect them to the world.
Even if this website is accurately describing the Amish's "belief" regarding electricity/modern technology, it only mentions a "part" of what this "belief" may be based on. The "part" that is mentioned really has nothing to do with Christianity itself. If they are using some scriptures that refer to "worldly associations" as a basis for their "belief", then I would need to know which scriptures they are. Otherwise, I'm kind of "in the dark"...even though I use electricity myself. I hope you understand. Thanks.
QUOTE
That is a very broad definition you have there.
Yes it is broad. My point in presenting the denominations of Christianity. I didn't say what they should believe, but what a Christian should be. I would ask newguy and PhilP what the demarcation lines are for Christian criteria. Obviously people who 'sin' can be Christians: the whole idea of religion is (supposedly) to raise one's spiritual level.
When I said "and nothing else" I mean philosophically; I don't mean no career but missionary work, or no non-religious hobbies, etc.,etc. You can even be a scientist - remember it IS a broad palette there, not a restraining one, except when it comes to a philosophy of living and dealing with others. That is where Christian philosophy focuses on - how you live and act with and towards others, including yourself. You can be a paid scientist researching how the strange particle relates to errant bosons while performing goodwill and benevolence to your coworkers and everyone else in your sphere, and as such be a fine Christian. But some Christians will say for instance if you don't go to church every Sunday you can't be a good Christian. The palette is broad with interpretation. However, philosophy is impotent until put in action, and imho there is NO Christianity save for what you do; it's not what you think that counts, it's
what
you
do.
In which case the most succint passage in the Bible for me is not the 10 Commandments, but the Lord's Prayer. It's simple, to the point, covers all bases, and is in no way murky thus allowing for many interpretations. In all the controversy over Biblical passages, this simple delivery is understood universally by all. It passes the test of Occam's Razor. In Biblical chronology, Moses gave the law, but Jesus gave the truth: this is the lexicon of spiritual learning.
Like everyone I have my own interpretations. I'll give one that I would expect both newguy and PhilP to be firmly united on (
), against me: I believe that those who follow the teachings of Christ without knowing who Jesus was or even disbelieving in Him will be just as 'rewarded' as Christians. In fact I would be willing to say they were a Christian. Here we go - I don't believe that one needs to be loyal to any religion or Personage at all, only to follow the Spiritual way. In which case I will go so far in my heresy as to say an atheist can be a holy person who does "God's Will" by nothing more than excellent living full of wisdom tolerance and benevolence towards his/her fellows. I believe strongly that professed atheists on this forum can be as full of grace as any good Christian here. Obviously vkamath from many other posts you already know that my view of God is not at all the mainstream one, or even close in any way to them, yet the Biblical reporting of Jesus' ministry I believe happened, including miracles. It may take many many pages of posting to debunk the knee-jerk cries of "mutually exclusive"! and "absolutely daft"! (and am not at all eager to) But I find absolutely no conflict in this, providing you remove the impediments to it. And it's all the impediments that I have no belief in. For this reason Christians would view me as agnostic since I do not believe in all the things I 'must' to grasp God. So I am an agnostic Christian who believes Science and Perfect Mind are not just mutually inclusive, they are inseparable.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
Like everyone I have my own interpretations. I'll give one that I would expect both newguy and PhilP to be firmly united on ( ), against me...
soundhertz: Although I trust you were being "playful" with that statement, nevertheless, I feel the need to inform you(collectively) that I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to be "firmly united against" anyone...certainly not you(personally). I am NOT Physorg's, or any other org's, "fruit inspector". I have personally met multitudes of people who claimed to be Christians and simply were not. I've exacted no pleasure from this whatsoever. Those who personally know me could testify that MANY nights I've been unable to eat my food or even sleep due to the extreme grief that I've felt for others. Quite frankly, there have been many times, when meditating on the plight of others, that I have wished that I had never been born. Rather than engage in a long discourse on this topic, I will simply go back to the signature at the bottom of each of my posts:
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."(John 17:3)
Those are the words of Jesus Christ, as recorded in scripture. Do you know God? Do you know Jesus Christ? I'm not looking for any of you to answer that question to me, but rather to yourselves. I wish none of you any harm. I simply wish that you might genuinely find eternal life through Jesus Christ. Have a good night.
), against me...soundhertz: Although I trust you were being "playful" with that statement, nevertheless, I feel the need to inform you(collectively) that I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to be "firmly united against" anyone...certainly not you(personally). I am NOT Physorg's, or any other org's, "fruit inspector". I have personally met multitudes of people who claimed to be Christians and simply were not. I've exacted no pleasure from this whatsoever. Those who personally know me could testify that MANY nights I've been unable to eat my food or even sleep due to the extreme grief that I've felt for others. Quite frankly, there have been many times, when meditating on the plight of others, that I have wished that I had never been born. Rather than engage in a long discourse on this topic, I will simply go back to the signature at the bottom of each of my posts:
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."(John 17:3)
Those are the words of Jesus Christ, as recorded in scripture. Do you know God? Do you know Jesus Christ? I'm not looking for any of you to answer that question to me, but rather to yourselves. I wish none of you any harm. I simply wish that you might genuinely find eternal life through Jesus Christ. Have a good night.
QUOTE (newguy+)
You would really need to give me some basis(scriptural references) for the "beliefs" that you describe. I cannot possibly tell you if something is Biblically accurate or not without a Biblical reference point.
I wish I could give you some scriptural refernces, but my knowledge in this area is completely lacking.
My point here is that different sects follow different practices (sometimes completely opposite ones For example polygamy is a sin for some, not for mormons) and still call themselves devout Christians. Try telling a fundamentalist mormon that (s)he isn't Christian.
What do you think is the cause of the existence of so many different sects? Is it as simple as "I am right, they are wrong" ?
I wish I could give you some scriptural refernces, but my knowledge in this area is completely lacking.
My point here is that different sects follow different practices (sometimes completely opposite ones For example polygamy is a sin for some, not for mormons) and still call themselves devout Christians. Try telling a fundamentalist mormon that (s)he isn't Christian.
What do you think is the cause of the existence of so many different sects? Is it as simple as "I am right, they are wrong" ?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
My point here is that different sects follow different practices (sometimes completely opposite ones For example polygamy is a sin for some, not for mormons) and still call themselves devout Christians. Try telling a fundamentalist mormon that (s)he isn't Christian.
What do you think is the cause of the existence of so many different sects? Is it as simple as "I am right, they are wrong" ?
vkamath: Actually, I have told Mormons, based on my interactions with them, that they weren't/aren't Christians. One particular case involved a meeting between me, my friend, my friend's brother-in-law(the Mormons had been regularly meeting with him and were desiring to baptize him) and two Mormon "elders". In this particular case, the two "elders" were clearly motivated by PRIDE. That is one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, for so many different "sects". The Mormons couldn't answer anything outside of the realm of what they had been indoctrinated in and quite apparently only desired to add another "notch" in their Mormon "gunbelts" and also to get "The book of Mormon: Another testament of Jesus Christ"(the actual name of their "book") into the hands of my friend's brother-in-law. At least they admit that it is "another testament". People are promised positions of authority if they basically "do as they are told". Many people "jump" at this opportunity, desiring the "honor of men" more than the "honor of God". I also vividly remember encountering many Mormons(you can tell them by their white shirts and black pants and their "elder" name badges) while I was preaching on the streets of New York City. I specifically warned the people(via my microphone) about some of the Mormon doctrines in their presence and I was "given the finger" by the "elders". I have seen the same thing when dealing with many "Seventh Day Adventists". They attend a few seminars and are "tempted" with the promise to one day teach seminars themselves. Many, unfortunately, "take the bait". In my debates with such people(and many others just like them), I have ALWAYS found that they have a VERY LIMITED understanding of the scriptures. They have basically been "brainwashed" with a few verses that are taken out of context and once you let them "shoot their wad"(sorry for that type of description, but I think it fits) or spout of their cherished doctrines, they are basically scripturally illiterate and cannot operate "outside of the box". Anyhow, like I said earlier, I exact no pleasure from any of this...I'm simply trying to answer your questions. Take care.
P.S. By the way, I have directly asked many of these types of individuals(quite possibly all of them) if they "know God". NOT ONE OF THEM has ever told me "yes". NOT ONE. They know their "doctrines"...and that's it.
What do you think is the cause of the existence of so many different sects? Is it as simple as "I am right, they are wrong" ?
vkamath: Actually, I have told Mormons, based on my interactions with them, that they weren't/aren't Christians. One particular case involved a meeting between me, my friend, my friend's brother-in-law(the Mormons had been regularly meeting with him and were desiring to baptize him) and two Mormon "elders". In this particular case, the two "elders" were clearly motivated by PRIDE. That is one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, for so many different "sects". The Mormons couldn't answer anything outside of the realm of what they had been indoctrinated in and quite apparently only desired to add another "notch" in their Mormon "gunbelts" and also to get "The book of Mormon: Another testament of Jesus Christ"(the actual name of their "book") into the hands of my friend's brother-in-law. At least they admit that it is "another testament". People are promised positions of authority if they basically "do as they are told". Many people "jump" at this opportunity, desiring the "honor of men" more than the "honor of God". I also vividly remember encountering many Mormons(you can tell them by their white shirts and black pants and their "elder" name badges) while I was preaching on the streets of New York City. I specifically warned the people(via my microphone) about some of the Mormon doctrines in their presence and I was "given the finger" by the "elders". I have seen the same thing when dealing with many "Seventh Day Adventists". They attend a few seminars and are "tempted" with the promise to one day teach seminars themselves. Many, unfortunately, "take the bait". In my debates with such people(and many others just like them), I have ALWAYS found that they have a VERY LIMITED understanding of the scriptures. They have basically been "brainwashed" with a few verses that are taken out of context and once you let them "shoot their wad"(sorry for that type of description, but I think it fits) or spout of their cherished doctrines, they are basically scripturally illiterate and cannot operate "outside of the box". Anyhow, like I said earlier, I exact no pleasure from any of this...I'm simply trying to answer your questions. Take care.
P.S. By the way, I have directly asked many of these types of individuals(quite possibly all of them) if they "know God". NOT ONE OF THEM has ever told me "yes". NOT ONE. They know their "doctrines"...and that's it.
[QUOTE=newguy,Oct 19 2006, 07:38 PM]
For example Mormon fundamentalists practice polygamy. According to them, this is not against the word of Christ.
Another example, the Amish avoid modern technology and consider it to be inherently bad. Their interpretation of Christianity or words of Christ is obviously different from that of other sects.[/QUOTE]
vkamath: You would really need to give me some basis(scriptural references) for the "beliefs" that you describe. I cannot possibly tell you if something is Biblically accurate or not without a Biblical reference point. I did briefly check up on the Amish "belief" that you mentioned and came up with the following:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/amish3.htm
The world: They believe in remaining quite separate from the rest of the world, physically and socially. Part of this may be caused by the belief that association with others -- often referred to as "The English" -- may be polluting. Part may be because of the intense persecution experienced by their ancestors as a result of government oppression. Amish homes do not draw power from the electrical grid. They feel that that would excessively connect them to the world.
Even if this website is accurately describing the Amish's "belief" regarding electricity/modern technology, it only mentions a "part" of what this "belief" may be based on. The "part" that is mentioned really has nothing to do with Christianity itself. If they are using some scriptures that refer to "worldly associations" as a basis for their "belief", then I would need to know which scriptures they are. Otherwise, I'm kind of "in the dark"...even though I use electricity myself. I hope you understand. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
hi newguy is good to talk to you again even in the weekends terms that i have to do it in order to participate.
it is funny that while some of you mention the amish this people is not aware of any of us talking through computers and mentioning them.so i guess the founder of that website has to be an ex-amish because it if was a real amish he will not had access to a computer.
about a couple of months i was watching this documentary in tv about them and the way this people survive is amaizing womens speak a different language than mens ;in their schools they only teach the bible to the kids; and the lack of electricity in one of the comunities( were they filmed the documentary) forced the amish to get electricity while some others more radical that were opposed to the use of electricity (the radicals )were leaving mexico to bolivia in a exodus looking for be continuosly aislated from the world.those that were surviving in mexico had some cattle to attend , some debts to pay to the banks and facing the lack of rain made the conditions of habitability even worse .also in the youngest ones there is a high rate of alcoholism because there is nothing to do in the spare time like sundays and etc.this is why their parents keep their tractors for agriculture whit iron wheels instead of rubber wheels because the youngest use the tractors to go to the nearest town and buy some beer.i am only telling what i saw maybe some things are accurate and maybe some others don't.the ones that were in bolivia said that were more easy to survive in bolivia because the weather conditions there are different and it rains more that in mexico.but they also believe that in order to be a good christian the suffering is part of it.i hope someone else has anything more to say.
For example Mormon fundamentalists practice polygamy. According to them, this is not against the word of Christ.
Another example, the Amish avoid modern technology and consider it to be inherently bad. Their interpretation of Christianity or words of Christ is obviously different from that of other sects.[/QUOTE]
vkamath: You would really need to give me some basis(scriptural references) for the "beliefs" that you describe. I cannot possibly tell you if something is Biblically accurate or not without a Biblical reference point. I did briefly check up on the Amish "belief" that you mentioned and came up with the following:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/amish3.htm
The world: They believe in remaining quite separate from the rest of the world, physically and socially. Part of this may be caused by the belief that association with others -- often referred to as "The English" -- may be polluting. Part may be because of the intense persecution experienced by their ancestors as a result of government oppression. Amish homes do not draw power from the electrical grid. They feel that that would excessively connect them to the world.
Even if this website is accurately describing the Amish's "belief" regarding electricity/modern technology, it only mentions a "part" of what this "belief" may be based on. The "part" that is mentioned really has nothing to do with Christianity itself. If they are using some scriptures that refer to "worldly associations" as a basis for their "belief", then I would need to know which scriptures they are. Otherwise, I'm kind of "in the dark"...even though I use electricity myself. I hope you understand. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
hi newguy is good to talk to you again even in the weekends terms that i have to do it in order to participate.
it is funny that while some of you mention the amish this people is not aware of any of us talking through computers and mentioning them.so i guess the founder of that website has to be an ex-amish because it if was a real amish he will not had access to a computer.
about a couple of months i was watching this documentary in tv about them and the way this people survive is amaizing womens speak a different language than mens ;in their schools they only teach the bible to the kids; and the lack of electricity in one of the comunities( were they filmed the documentary) forced the amish to get electricity while some others more radical that were opposed to the use of electricity (the radicals )were leaving mexico to bolivia in a exodus looking for be continuosly aislated from the world.those that were surviving in mexico had some cattle to attend , some debts to pay to the banks and facing the lack of rain made the conditions of habitability even worse .also in the youngest ones there is a high rate of alcoholism because there is nothing to do in the spare time like sundays and etc.this is why their parents keep their tractors for agriculture whit iron wheels instead of rubber wheels because the youngest use the tractors to go to the nearest town and buy some beer.i am only telling what i saw maybe some things are accurate and maybe some others don't.the ones that were in bolivia said that were more easy to survive in bolivia because the weather conditions there are different and it rains more that in mexico.but they also believe that in order to be a good christian the suffering is part of it.i hope someone else has anything more to say.
QUOTE (ashken+)
it is funny that while some of you mention the amish this people is not aware of any of us talking through computers and mentioning them.so i guess the founder of that website has to be an ex-amish because it if was a real amish he will not had access to a computer.
ashken: Good point. Your post reminded me of something that probably falls into the category of "hypocrisy" for the Amish people. As you're probably already aware, I live in Pennsylvania and one of the counties, Lancaster County, has a very, very large population of Amish people living within it. During the Spring, I set-up and sell at two outdoor markets in Lancaster County. The markets officially run from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., but most vendors are setting up by around 6:00 or 6:30 a.m. There are QUITE A FEW Amish vendors that set up at these markets. QUITE A FEW. To my recollection, THEY ALL USE ELECTRICITY in their booths at night. Perhaps when it comes to the "Almighty dollar", "Almighty God" goes out the window. I would also have to honestly say(my wife could bear witness to this as well) that the Amish women, girls and boys ofttimes visit my booth and question me on how much my shirts cost(I sell tye-dye shirts with wildlife prints on them). Although they have no problem with my prices, they never buy, BUT they always have a "longing look" in their eyes, indicating that they really want the merchandise in their hearts. What is wrong with wildlife? What is wrong with color? What is wrong with electricity? What does any of this have to do with Christianity? NOT A THING. I would suggest to you that there is something wrong with some of the Amish's "beliefs". Anyhow, it's good to talk to you again...even if it's only on weekends. Take care.
ashken: Good point. Your post reminded me of something that probably falls into the category of "hypocrisy" for the Amish people. As you're probably already aware, I live in Pennsylvania and one of the counties, Lancaster County, has a very, very large population of Amish people living within it. During the Spring, I set-up and sell at two outdoor markets in Lancaster County. The markets officially run from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., but most vendors are setting up by around 6:00 or 6:30 a.m. There are QUITE A FEW Amish vendors that set up at these markets. QUITE A FEW. To my recollection, THEY ALL USE ELECTRICITY in their booths at night. Perhaps when it comes to the "Almighty dollar", "Almighty God" goes out the window. I would also have to honestly say(my wife could bear witness to this as well) that the Amish women, girls and boys ofttimes visit my booth and question me on how much my shirts cost(I sell tye-dye shirts with wildlife prints on them). Although they have no problem with my prices, they never buy, BUT they always have a "longing look" in their eyes, indicating that they really want the merchandise in their hearts. What is wrong with wildlife? What is wrong with color? What is wrong with electricity? What does any of this have to do with Christianity? NOT A THING. I would suggest to you that there is something wrong with some of the Amish's "beliefs". Anyhow, it's good to talk to you again...even if it's only on weekends. Take care.
QUOTE
soundhertz: Although I trust you were being "playful" with that statement
Sure I was, and on top of that it was a subtle stab at reconciliation between you and PhilP belief-wise. I like to see people get along.
I also live near to Lancaster county, and have often gone there. I have to say despite people's views of them being different and reluctant to modernize - and they are different - I found those whom I associated with to be of the highest character and integrity, which doesn't shatter as we all have seen.
I was driving around one day some years ago looking for an Amish pie (many have little 'right-off-the-porch' businesses) and sure enough saw the telltale sign on a porch post. Pies, home made root beer, quilts, etc. I stopped to buy a pie, and they were sold out. The Mrs. implored me to stay; she'd get one made and in the oven in a jiffy.
I spent my time happily having a catch with their kids and talking weather lore with the Mr. The delicious pie was soon ready.
Leaving there, I was filled with a lovely warmth from these people. Their Christianity was in full blossom, in the guise of tenderness, joy, peace. I felt like I was visiting Little House on the Prarie, an authentic one, right down to the heart, resonating with great wistfulness for the bygone days we may never see again, except in those rare places like the slowly-going-extinct Amish lands.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
Sure I was, and on top of that it was a subtle stab at reconciliation between you and PhilP belief-wise. I like to see people get along.
soundhertz: My suggestion to PhilP was that he check up on his own organization's "truthfulness" BEFORE telling us that it is the only true religion. I also presented him with some documentation that might help him along those lines. Is this a bad thing? Is this a sign of us not "getting along"? As I explained to Knot of this world recently on another thread, I am a "peacemaker". I am NOT a "peacekeeper". A "peacekeeper" is a hypocrite who will compromise truth in order to "keep the peace" that doesn't actually exist. A "peacemaker" will vehemently oppose error/wrongdoing in order to "make real peace". The guy came on this thread in an overbearing manner...haven't heard a whisper from him of late. Maybe he's just busy. Maybe he's taking my advice. I don't know. Anyhow, enough about PhilP, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, the Amish, etc. It's a full-time job just working on MYSELF. Let me reiterate...
I exact no pleasure whatsoever from talking about other people's shortcomings.
I only mention them so that others might not make the same mistakes. If you recall, this thread was titled "Not an apology" by PhilP in contrast to my "I apologize" thread in which I publicly apologized to you all for some of my own shortcomings. I have apologized publicly several others times on this forum for other things as well. I have also repeatedly stated that much/most of my own fellowship with God has come in the form of correction. As I said, I'm no one's "fruit inspector" but my own. Take care.
P.S. I wasn't implying that there aren't nice Amish people, by the way. I was only addressing the issue of electricity and how it doesn't really pertain to Christianity at all. I've met a lot of Amish people myself...some nice, some "other". Ever been to either "The Green Dragon" or "Roots"? Those are the markets that I was referring to.
soundhertz: My suggestion to PhilP was that he check up on his own organization's "truthfulness" BEFORE telling us that it is the only true religion. I also presented him with some documentation that might help him along those lines. Is this a bad thing? Is this a sign of us not "getting along"? As I explained to Knot of this world recently on another thread, I am a "peacemaker". I am NOT a "peacekeeper". A "peacekeeper" is a hypocrite who will compromise truth in order to "keep the peace" that doesn't actually exist. A "peacemaker" will vehemently oppose error/wrongdoing in order to "make real peace". The guy came on this thread in an overbearing manner...haven't heard a whisper from him of late. Maybe he's just busy. Maybe he's taking my advice. I don't know. Anyhow, enough about PhilP, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, the Amish, etc. It's a full-time job just working on MYSELF. Let me reiterate...
I exact no pleasure whatsoever from talking about other people's shortcomings.
I only mention them so that others might not make the same mistakes. If you recall, this thread was titled "Not an apology" by PhilP in contrast to my "I apologize" thread in which I publicly apologized to you all for some of my own shortcomings. I have apologized publicly several others times on this forum for other things as well. I have also repeatedly stated that much/most of my own fellowship with God has come in the form of correction. As I said, I'm no one's "fruit inspector" but my own. Take care.
P.S. I wasn't implying that there aren't nice Amish people, by the way. I was only addressing the issue of electricity and how it doesn't really pertain to Christianity at all. I've met a lot of Amish people myself...some nice, some "other". Ever been to either "The Green Dragon" or "Roots"? Those are the markets that I was referring to.
It wasn't until now that I saw that my comment on the Amish could have been taken as a rebuke to your comments. I didn't intend that, it was just when the subject came up it reminded me of warm experiences and I shared them. It really was just that with nothing else attached.
As far as the other subject, I would never try to make someone see someone else's way; but I cannot escape the soft melancholy that hits me when others 'go at it'. It happens very often here, and at times very viciously. I cannot read those threads when it does. Guess I'm just a softee, or rather I'm more sensitive to it than I should be. This evening a fellow sound engineer at the Moravian Tileworks Pumpkinfest got into a terrible quarrel with the engineer of one of the bands; I can't help it, I'm terribly dismayed when I see this sort of thing. I hide it well, but I'm not a happy camper until I quietly get over it. If I was in Iraq I have no idea how I'd handle it. Wouldn't have much fear of explosions and life threatening scenarios, but the hate and viciousness between people who are blinded by rage to their brothers would just be too much for me. I'm sure I need to work on this.
As far as the other subject, I would never try to make someone see someone else's way; but I cannot escape the soft melancholy that hits me when others 'go at it'. It happens very often here, and at times very viciously. I cannot read those threads when it does. Guess I'm just a softee, or rather I'm more sensitive to it than I should be. This evening a fellow sound engineer at the Moravian Tileworks Pumpkinfest got into a terrible quarrel with the engineer of one of the bands; I can't help it, I'm terribly dismayed when I see this sort of thing. I hide it well, but I'm not a happy camper until I quietly get over it. If I was in Iraq I have no idea how I'd handle it. Wouldn't have much fear of explosions and life threatening scenarios, but the hate and viciousness between people who are blinded by rage to their brothers would just be too much for me. I'm sure I need to work on this.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
It wasn't until now that I saw that my comment on the Amish could have been taken as a rebuke to your comments. I didn't intend that, it was just when the subject came up it reminded me of warm experiences and I shared them. It really was just that with nothing else attached.
soundhertz: I really didn't take your comments as a rebuke. No need to apologize for sharing your warm experiences. Actually, I felt a little "uneasy" after my own comments and I wanted to reiterate that I have no pleasure in some of the things that I say.
soundhertz: I really didn't take your comments as a rebuke. No need to apologize for sharing your warm experiences. Actually, I felt a little "uneasy" after my own comments and I wanted to reiterate that I have no pleasure in some of the things that I say.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
As far as the other subject, I would never try to make someone see someone else's way; but I cannot escape the soft melancholy that hits me when others 'go at it'. It happens very often here, and at times very viciously. I cannot read those threads when it does. Guess I'm just a softee, or rather I'm more sensitive to it than I should be. This evening a fellow sound engineer at the Moravian Tileworks Pumpkinfest got into a terrible quarrel with the engineer of one of the bands; I can't help it, I'm terribly dismayed when I see this sort of thing. I hide it well, but I'm not a happy camper until I quietly get over it. If I was in Iraq I have no idea how I'd handle it. Wouldn't have much fear of explosions and life threatening scenarios, but the hate and viciousness between people who are blinded by rage to their brothers would just be too much for me. I'm sure I need to work on this.
Again, I feel no pleasure whatsoever when I "go at it", to use your terminology. I cannot, however, be quiet when I see someone going off course. To do that, in my mindset, is tantamount to hatred. Love warns. I hope you can understand, if not agree. I don't agree that you need to work on the "dismay" that you spoke of. Personally, I would be "dismayed" if these types of things DIDN'T bother me. Take care.
Again, I feel no pleasure whatsoever when I "go at it", to use your terminology. I cannot, however, be quiet when I see someone going off course. To do that, in my mindset, is tantamount to hatred. Love warns. I hope you can understand, if not agree. I don't agree that you need to work on the "dismay" that you spoke of. Personally, I would be "dismayed" if these types of things DIDN'T bother me. Take care.
Hi campers! Sorry I haven't had time recently to read all the new comments in this thread, so I don't know much about what's going down. I just thought I'd add a comment or two.
It occurs to me that whenever someone or a group of people develop a common interest/shared set of beliefs; many others feel threatened, intimidated, afraid, etc due to ignorance usually, and may become angry and bigotted. Peer pressure also can play a role in stirring things up. I understand all this, and unfortunately it's a part of life at present, so I try not to let it get me down.
Whenever people start abusing others or violating their rights, hostility usually develops also. Many who claim to be Christian (nominal Christianity) become the worst offenders on both sides. This is not reflecting the love of the Christ and his teachings, but is in opposition to it.
I have much respect and empathy for those who have sincerely tried to follow the ways of early Christianity, flying in the face of the masses of Christendom, and often incurring its wrath upon them in the form of ridicule, harassment, persecution, violence, murders, and other atrocities.
I understand the Amish not wanting to use electricity, as wanting to be separate from the world as Jesus commanded. We should be careful about going to extremes however, and of misinterpreting his words. Being no part of the world means avoiding it's politics, immoral lifestyles and other Godless ways. It doesn't mean isolating ourselves either, or how could we "spread the Good News" in that case? Jesus provided the example by taking them door to door. God's people on the whole have always lived among the general populace.
The Quakers sincerely tried to follow the Bible and early Christianity originally, but became involved with politics and more materialistic lifestyles. Then there were disagreements and divisions, until they could no longer teach their children their beliefs due to feeling hypocritical. They ended up withdrawing from politics and their "holy experiment" when the governor declared war on the Indian tribes in 1756. Any enterprise, no matter how well intentioned, that tries to fuse religion with the politics of the world, does so without the blessing of God or of his Son. Hence it cannot succeed (John 17:16; James 4:4; 1 John 5:19; Psalm 127:1)
It occurs to me that whenever someone or a group of people develop a common interest/shared set of beliefs; many others feel threatened, intimidated, afraid, etc due to ignorance usually, and may become angry and bigotted. Peer pressure also can play a role in stirring things up. I understand all this, and unfortunately it's a part of life at present, so I try not to let it get me down.
Whenever people start abusing others or violating their rights, hostility usually develops also. Many who claim to be Christian (nominal Christianity) become the worst offenders on both sides. This is not reflecting the love of the Christ and his teachings, but is in opposition to it.
I have much respect and empathy for those who have sincerely tried to follow the ways of early Christianity, flying in the face of the masses of Christendom, and often incurring its wrath upon them in the form of ridicule, harassment, persecution, violence, murders, and other atrocities.
I understand the Amish not wanting to use electricity, as wanting to be separate from the world as Jesus commanded. We should be careful about going to extremes however, and of misinterpreting his words. Being no part of the world means avoiding it's politics, immoral lifestyles and other Godless ways. It doesn't mean isolating ourselves either, or how could we "spread the Good News" in that case? Jesus provided the example by taking them door to door. God's people on the whole have always lived among the general populace.
The Quakers sincerely tried to follow the Bible and early Christianity originally, but became involved with politics and more materialistic lifestyles. Then there were disagreements and divisions, until they could no longer teach their children their beliefs due to feeling hypocritical. They ended up withdrawing from politics and their "holy experiment" when the governor declared war on the Indian tribes in 1756. Any enterprise, no matter how well intentioned, that tries to fuse religion with the politics of the world, does so without the blessing of God or of his Son. Hence it cannot succeed (John 17:16; James 4:4; 1 John 5:19; Psalm 127:1)
QUOTE (PhilP+)
Hi campers! Sorry I haven't had time recently to read all the new comments in this thread, so I don't know much about what's going down. I just thought I'd add a comment or two.
PhilP: You "had the time" to read the dialogue in regards to the Amish...Would you have us to believe that you didn't read what I posted in regard to your organization's many false prophecies regarding the end-times?
PhilP: You "had the time" to read the dialogue in regards to the Amish...Would you have us to believe that you didn't read what I posted in regard to your organization's many false prophecies regarding the end-times?
QUOTE (PhilP+)
Any enterprise, no matter how well intentioned, that tries to fuse religion with the politics of the world, does so without the blessing of God or of his Son. Hence it cannot succeed (John 17:16; James 4:4; 1 John 5:19; Psalm 127:1)
So, according to you, the prophet Jonah should have never gone to Nineveh and the king of Nineveh should have never instructed his people to repent towards God(Jonah 3:5-10) because Jonah was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" at the time?
So, according to you, the prophet Daniel was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when he counseled King Nebuchadnezzar?
So, according to you, the prophets(Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) were "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when they sent "lamentations" and "warnings" to leaders of different nations?
So, according to you, Moses was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when he withstood Pharaoh?
So, according to you, when the apostle Paul spoke to the deputy(a Roman proconsul) Sergius Paulus, who became a believer(Acts 13:4-12), he did so "without the blessing of God or of His Son"?
Shall I go on? More ignorant, generalized, errant statements by you. If you plan on spreading your "true religion" here, you'd better start adding some "truth" to it. Take care...literally.
So, according to you, the prophet Jonah should have never gone to Nineveh and the king of Nineveh should have never instructed his people to repent towards God(Jonah 3:5-10) because Jonah was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" at the time?
So, according to you, the prophet Daniel was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when he counseled King Nebuchadnezzar?
So, according to you, the prophets(Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) were "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when they sent "lamentations" and "warnings" to leaders of different nations?
So, according to you, Moses was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when he withstood Pharaoh?
So, according to you, when the apostle Paul spoke to the deputy(a Roman proconsul) Sergius Paulus, who became a believer(Acts 13:4-12), he did so "without the blessing of God or of His Son"?
Shall I go on? More ignorant, generalized, errant statements by you. If you plan on spreading your "true religion" here, you'd better start adding some "truth" to it. Take care...literally.
PhilP, newguy,
The criteria for being a true Christian involves accepting God's Word, and also God's Son Jesus, and obediently following Jesus' ways in principle, and his teachings. It involves freeing oneself from all vestiges of false religion along with it's doctrine and superstitions. Baptism is a requirement, after developing a basic knowledge and understanding of Bible truths. The two greatest commandments encompass all else. To love God wholeheartedly and our neighbour as ourself.
We all have inherited sin until this time, through Adam, and thus we still die. We also sin with our thoughts, speech, and sometimes actions. Many things are forgiveable, however, continual unrepentant sin may not be. There are degrees of sin, ranging from minor to serious. Serious sinners who display an unrepentant attitude may be disfellowshipped (excommunicated) from the Christian Congregation according to the Biblical rule. There is provision for them to become re-instated also if they choose, and they are encouraged to continue attending meetings and are provided for spiritually, and physically in emergency.
We contact many people, some study the Bible with us, and attend meetings. Sometimes our children choose to go their own way also, perhaps temporarily, and so there's always a mixture of different kinds of people attending our public meetings. But to become one of us, they must first give up any unchristian ways or conduct. I hope this helps to answer your question
QUOTE (newguy+)
If you plan on spreading your "true religion" here, you'd better start adding some "truth" to it.
Both of your "true religion"s are equally baseless. Have a nice day (in lalaland).
Both of your "true religion"s are equally baseless. Have a nice day (in lalaland).
QUOTE
I would ask newguy and PhilP what the demarcation lines are for Christian criteria. Obviously people who 'sin' can be Christians
The criteria for being a true Christian involves accepting God's Word, and also God's Son Jesus, and obediently following Jesus' ways in principle, and his teachings. It involves freeing oneself from all vestiges of false religion along with it's doctrine and superstitions. Baptism is a requirement, after developing a basic knowledge and understanding of Bible truths. The two greatest commandments encompass all else. To love God wholeheartedly and our neighbour as ourself.
We all have inherited sin until this time, through Adam, and thus we still die. We also sin with our thoughts, speech, and sometimes actions. Many things are forgiveable, however, continual unrepentant sin may not be. There are degrees of sin, ranging from minor to serious. Serious sinners who display an unrepentant attitude may be disfellowshipped (excommunicated) from the Christian Congregation according to the Biblical rule. There is provision for them to become re-instated also if they choose, and they are encouraged to continue attending meetings and are provided for spiritually, and physically in emergency.
We contact many people, some study the Bible with us, and attend meetings. Sometimes our children choose to go their own way also, perhaps temporarily, and so there's always a mixture of different kinds of people attending our public meetings. But to become one of us, they must first give up any unchristian ways or conduct. I hope this helps to answer your question
Well newguy, I see it didn't take you long to revert.
btw vkamath, I know how you feel, as the physical man cannot understand spiritual things, as they are foolishness to him. Let's leave it at that.
Actually newguy, it might surprise you to learn that some people have a life outside this forum, and this is not my arena for preaching, nor is it the preferred or desired method of doing so. We go out and face people all the time with our message, and don't hide anonymously behind a PC screen talking impersonally to whome we do not know. Time is better spent in meeting people who often appreciate being contacted personally, and communication is greatly improved.
I actually don't get the time to read everything, and the comments I made were in line with the few items I was able to notice.
So are you hoping to invalidate Jesus words that Christians must be no part of the world? Do you think it acceptable to engage in paganism which God condemns?
Jesus Kingdom is a heavenly ruled one, and he has not delegated it to unreliable humans. Whilst we are in subjection to the superior authorities, we do not become involved in politics, like many of the churches who also develop church businesses.
I hope you and all here get the chance to read the latest tract we are distributing worldwide entitled "The end of false religion is near". It is most illuminating, and what a time of rejoicing that will be for us, according to prophecy. It marks the start of many great events.
Speaking to or standing before rulers has nothing to do with being involved in politics. God can and does manipulate nations and has used his servants in the past as his representatives. We today have used legal means when necessary to aid in furthering our work or defend certain rights, and have thus benefitted many other religions and groups also by granting them freedom of speech.
When they wanted to make Jesus a King on earth, he withdrew from them. Why? Because his Kingdom was in the Heavens, and it is from there in his power he can accomplish the most good.
Likewise his servants slave for that Kingdom, and not for trying vainly to prop up and maintain a dying system.
btw vkamath, I know how you feel, as the physical man cannot understand spiritual things, as they are foolishness to him. Let's leave it at that.
QUOTE
PhilP: You "had the time" to read the dialogue in regards to the Amish...Would you have us to believe that you didn't read what I posted in regard to your organization's many false prophecies regarding the end-times?
QUOTE (PhilP)
Any enterprise, no matter how well intentioned, that tries to fuse religion with the politics of the world, does so without the blessing of God or of his Son. Hence it cannot succeed (John 17:16; James 4:4; 1 John 5:19; Psalm 127:1)
So, according to you, the prophet Jonah should have never gone to Nineveh and the king of Nineveh should have never instructed his people to repent towards God(Jonah 3:5-10) because Jonah was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" at the time?
So, according to you, the prophet Daniel was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when he counseled King Nebuchadnezzar?
So, according to you, the prophets(Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) were "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when they sent "lamentations" and "warnings" to leaders of different nations?
So, according to you, Moses was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when he withstood Pharaoh?
So, according to you, when the apostle Paul spoke to the deputy(a Roman proconsul) Sergius Paulus, who became a believer(Acts 13:4-12), he did so "without the blessing of God or of His Son"?
Shall I go on? More ignorant, generalized, errant statements by you. If you plan on spreading your "true religion" here, you'd better start adding some "truth" to it. Take care...literally.
QUOTE (PhilP)
Any enterprise, no matter how well intentioned, that tries to fuse religion with the politics of the world, does so without the blessing of God or of his Son. Hence it cannot succeed (John 17:16; James 4:4; 1 John 5:19; Psalm 127:1)
So, according to you, the prophet Jonah should have never gone to Nineveh and the king of Nineveh should have never instructed his people to repent towards God(Jonah 3:5-10) because Jonah was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" at the time?
So, according to you, the prophet Daniel was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when he counseled King Nebuchadnezzar?
So, according to you, the prophets(Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) were "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when they sent "lamentations" and "warnings" to leaders of different nations?
So, according to you, Moses was "without the blessing of God or of His Son" when he withstood Pharaoh?
So, according to you, when the apostle Paul spoke to the deputy(a Roman proconsul) Sergius Paulus, who became a believer(Acts 13:4-12), he did so "without the blessing of God or of His Son"?
Shall I go on? More ignorant, generalized, errant statements by you. If you plan on spreading your "true religion" here, you'd better start adding some "truth" to it. Take care...literally.
Actually newguy, it might surprise you to learn that some people have a life outside this forum, and this is not my arena for preaching, nor is it the preferred or desired method of doing so. We go out and face people all the time with our message, and don't hide anonymously behind a PC screen talking impersonally to whome we do not know. Time is better spent in meeting people who often appreciate being contacted personally, and communication is greatly improved.
I actually don't get the time to read everything, and the comments I made were in line with the few items I was able to notice.
So are you hoping to invalidate Jesus words that Christians must be no part of the world? Do you think it acceptable to engage in paganism which God condemns?
Jesus Kingdom is a heavenly ruled one, and he has not delegated it to unreliable humans. Whilst we are in subjection to the superior authorities, we do not become involved in politics, like many of the churches who also develop church businesses.
I hope you and all here get the chance to read the latest tract we are distributing worldwide entitled "The end of false religion is near". It is most illuminating, and what a time of rejoicing that will be for us, according to prophecy. It marks the start of many great events.
Speaking to or standing before rulers has nothing to do with being involved in politics. God can and does manipulate nations and has used his servants in the past as his representatives. We today have used legal means when necessary to aid in furthering our work or defend certain rights, and have thus benefitted many other religions and groups also by granting them freedom of speech.
When they wanted to make Jesus a King on earth, he withdrew from them. Why? Because his Kingdom was in the Heavens, and it is from there in his power he can accomplish the most good.
Likewise his servants slave for that Kingdom, and not for trying vainly to prop up and maintain a dying system.
One further thing, I really have not seen any challenges to my beliefs in this thread, otherwise I would have commented obviously, but if any wish to know what we believe and why, there's nothing better you could do than to visit our official Web site at www.watchtower.org
There you will find a section on what we believe, and it is only the exact same thing I could tell you, only put better.
There you will find a section on what we believe, and it is only the exact same thing I could tell you, only put better.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
One further thing, I really have not seen any challenges to my beliefs in this thread, otherwise I would have commented obviously, but if any wish to know what we believe and why, there's nothing better you could do than to visit our official Web site at www.watchtower.org
There you will find a section on what we believe, and it is only the exact same thing I could tell you, only put better.
PhilP: You "have not seen any challenges"? What about the documentation that I presented in regards to some of the false prophecies of your organization? Here's some more for you to consider:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/200...heticYears.html
Watchtower Dates - The Jehovah's Witnesses and prophetic years
The Watchtower Society (WTS) - the leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) - is famous for its dates. Individual Witnesses know about the current prophetic years (1914, 1918, etc) but are mostly completely ignorant about the history of their movement, and when asked is most likely to deny that the WTS ever said anything about the end of the world in 1914 and 1925. Even for a recent episode like 1975, the JWs will often flatly deny that the WTS ever proclaimed Armageddon within no more than a few months from October 1975.
This list is intended to be comprehensive, if not exhaustive. There's a massive amount of research by many individuals behind this short summary, but I can never guarantee there are no errors. If you find any, please let me know.
Dates
1798
End of 1260 days of Rev 12. Start of "the last days". Three Worlds (1877), p114. (see Key to publication codes)
Replaced by 1799 no later than 1889, with SiS2. [Note 1]
1799
Start of "the last days". Napoleon debased the pope and ended the 1260 days of Dan 7:25; 12:7; Rev 11:1-3. WT Jan-Feb 1889 [repr p1093]. SiS2 p256. SiS3 p58,63,64
Replaced by 1914 in 1930 [Note 2]
1829
End of the 1290 years (from 539AD) of Daniel 12:11, when Miller's movement started. SiS3 p84, SiS7 p40, 60, 163. Our Lord's Return (1929) p27.
Abandoned in 1930
1844
Miller's "end of the world." To Russell, start of 30 year "tarrying time," corresponding to 30 years from Jesus' birth to his baptism. SiS2 p240
Abandoned in 1930
1846
End of the 2300 days, G. Storrs and others abandoned false doctrines, "sanctuary cleansed". Also start of "evangelical alliance" between protestant churches, called "spiritistic". SiS3 p108, SiS7 p163.
Abandoned in 1930
1873
6000 years of human existance ends, start of seventh millenium: THE millenium of Revelation; the Day of the Lord. See SiS2 foreword, p39. (New chronology making 1975 the end of 6000 years was adopted in 1943, but 1975 was not made an official prophetic date until 1966, with Life Everlasting.)
Abandoned in 1930
1874
The start of Christ's invisible presence. Russell's most important date. Three Worlds p175, SiS2 p170, Our Lord's Return p27, Proclaimers p133 footnote. Until around 1904, Russell taught that this year marked the start of the Battle of Armageddon, WT 1/15/92 p21-3 [repr p1355]. SiS2, p101.
Abandoned in 1930; [Note 2] WTS itself claims it was abandoned in 1943
1875
End of "Great Jubilee Cycle." End of 1335 days in Dan 12:12. The invisible resurrection of the saints started. (Note also that Russell held that the "Biblical year" 1875 started Oct 1874.) Three Worlds p108.
Idea of invisible resurrection in 1875 replaced by 1878 in 1881?
1878
End of gospel age, the rapture of the saints. Three Worlds p68; Proclaimers p632; Divine Purpose p19.
Naturally abandoned after 1878
1878
Heavenly resurrection of dead saints. God's favor returning to the Jews. Kingdom of God started to exercise power. WT Oct 1879 [repr p39]. SiS2 p101. SiS6, p663. Millions (1920) p27-8. 1928 editions of The Harp of God had removed this date from the text (see pp236, 244 in earlier editions).
Abandoned in 1928
1881
Rapture of the saints, including Russell and other Bible Students. WT Jan 1881 [repr p180], Dec 1880 [repr p172], compare May 1881 [repr p224].
Abandoned and even denied from May 1881
1881
Close of "high calling" to be among 144.000. Fall of Babylon. Proclaimers p632.
Replaced by 1918 in 1922?. Close of "high calling" later moved to 1935
1910
Expected rapture of the Saints, based on measurments in corridor in the Great Pyramid of Gizeh. SiS3, p364, versions issued before 1910.
Naturally abandoned after 1910
1914
The end of this world, Christ's literal return, the end of Armageddon and latest possible date for rapture. Jews expected to return to God's favour.
"Present truth" until the end of 1914, but replaced by 1915 from around 1912 to Aug 1914 (start of WWI, which was felt to somehow fulfill the above prophecies about 1914).
1914
Christ's invisible return, start of reign as King, end of last days. "Gentile times" ended, but this has no visible effect, except an (JW-imagined) increase in violence, wars, pestilence, earthquakes and other calamities since that year.
Current JW doctrine. From 1922 this was held to be start of Christ's *reign*, from 1930 also the start of invisible presence (earlier held to be 1874). [Note 2] Until recently, the WTS taught that some of those who experienced the events in 1914 would be alive to see the end of the world. This "1914 generation" doctrine was removed in November 1995. See WT 11/1 1995 p17. The "Creator's promise" about the end of the world before the 1914-generation died was removed from masthead (p4) of Awake! in 11/8 1995 issue. Whole idea of "generation" in Mt 24:34 being specific individuals is now abandoned.
1915
The end of the world. From ~1912 until start of WWI this year replaced 1914 in Russell's writings, since 2520 years from 606BC ends in 1915 not 1914 as Russell had thought. The fact that there is no zero year was "forgotten" when some events happened in 1914. In 1943 the idea that had been promoted in SiS7, namely to move Jerusalem's destruction from 606 to 607BC, was officially adopted (The fact that Jerusalem according to Bible chronology fell in 587BC does not interfere with Watchtower chronology.)
Year abandoned after start if WWI
1918
False religion, especially Christendom, to be destroyed. Demons would enter the minds of clergy, the "swine class", causing them to do stupid things that provokes "the masses" to destroy them. "Church members by millions" thus killed by God. SiS7 p128, 485.
Naturally abandoned after 1918
1918
Fall of Babylon, close of call to be among 144.000. This year is still held by JWs to be date for fall of Babylon, "all false religion." See Revelation Climax p260 which says "So by 1919 Babylon the Great had fallen".
Current JW doctrine. Close of "high calling" was later moved to 1935.
1919
The Bible Student/Watchtower movement chosen by Christ to be only "channel" of communication from God to men.
Current JW doctrine.
1920
Worldwide anarchy, collapse and fall of all earthly governments. SiS7 p258.
Naturally abandoned after 1920
1925
The end of the world immediately following the resurrection of "men of old" (Biblical heroes listed in Hebrews chapter 11). Establishment of Kingdom in Palestine. SiS7 p128, Millions p88,97. Very definite statements in WT 6/15 1922; 4/1 1923, elsewhere.
Naturally abandoned after 1925, even though the date itself was held to be somehow fixed in the Scriptures even as late as in 1931 (Vindication I p338).
1931/32
The "establishment of the Kingdom in Power." Based on Ezek 40:1, which dates a certain prophetic message to "the fourteenth year after the city was conquered", Rutherford added 14 years to 1918 to get 1932. See SiS7 p569. Later printings and translations of this book seems to have brought the realization that to get to the 14th year one adds 13, not 14, so the prophecy was changed to point to 1931.
Silently abandoned after the other prophecies, notably 1918 and 1925, failed to be fulfilled.
1935
Close of "high calling" to be of the 144.000. From this date, JWs have taught that the "great Company/Crowd" in Rev 7 will live on Earth, not in heaven. The "Great Crowd", all JWs except ~8000 living now, is not considered anointed Christians, is not "born again," do not partake in communion and does not have Christ as mediator. They expect eternal life on Earth. See WT 6/15 1992 p23; Proclaimers (1993) p166. This date is justified only on the fact that the doctrine about earthly hope for "great crowd" was created in 1935.
Current JW doctrine
1941
WW2 was expected to end in Armageddon, God's War. WT 9/15 1941 p288 talked about the "remaining months before Armageddon."
Idea abandoned in 1943, after death of Rutherford, when the Watchtower Society started to proclaim a "very short" period of peace after WWII.
1951
This was 37 years after 1914, like Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, which was 37 years after Christ's death (WTS chronology). Some WT articles in 1950 hinted strongly to this parallell. WT 11/1 1950 p407; 9/1 1950 p277; compare WT 3/15 1951 p179 and 4/1 1951 p214 both pointing out that "we are 37 years into the 'time of the end' of this world."
Idea was abandoned in WT 9/1 1952 p542
1954
Theoretical length of 1914-generation after the old "30-40 years" definition. See WT 9/1 1952 p542. "Generation" idea based on Matt 24:34, but it was finally abandoned in WT Nov 1, 1995.
Replaced by 70-80 year generation in 1952
1975
End of 6000 year of human history after WTS chronology. Strongly hinted to be end of the world; could only be a matter of "days and months, not years" before Armageddon. Life Everlasting p26-30; WT 7/15 1967 p446-7; 8/15 1968 p499; 5/1 1975 p 285. See also YB 1980 p30-31. (See What Happened in 1975?)
Abandoned and sometimes even denied after 1975
1984
Object for much speculation about maximum length of generation, based on 70 years from 1914 and Psalm 90:10. See WT 9/1 1952 p542; WT 12/1 1968 p715.
Abandoned silently as date approached.
1986
Declared by United Nations to be "International Year of Peace," which caused much expectations with JWs about the expected declaration of "peace and security", a sign of the imminent end based on a special interpretation of 1Th 5:3. WT 10/1 1985 p18.
Silently forgotten after 1986
1994
Object for much speculation about maximum length of generation, like 1984. See WT 9/1 1952 p542; WT 12/1 1968 p715.
Abandoned silently as date approached.
2000
End of world expected to come before end of century. WT 1/1 1989 p12 (work to be completed "in our 20th century", text changed in bound volume); WT 10/15 1980 p31 ("highly improbable" that this world continues to 2000); 3/1 1984 p18-19 ("end much closer than [2000]").
Notes
Note 1: References to this beginning of the "last days" in 1798/9 is found to be remarkably absent in many of Russell's writings. In fact, 1798 was a part of in Barbour's chronology, with the (alleged) start of papal rule in 538AD as a basis year, but Russell replaced it with 1799 (539AD basis) in the beginning of 1889. The 1799 date was emphasised as late as in Our Lord's Return, a Rutherford booklet from 1929, but evidently abandoned with almost all of the old chronology in 1930, with Light I. See Note 2.
Note 2: Sometime between the booklet Our Lord's Return in 1929 and Vindication I in 1931 Rutherford rejected almost all of Russell's old chronology and many other central doctrines. The book Light I (1930) emphasised the time from 1879 to 1918 as a time of preparation, and 1918 as the coming of the Lord to his temple. 1914 is stated to be the year God put Christ on his throne. 1874 is understood to be wrong. The first explicit statement about Christ's "parousia" from 1914 seems to be in the 1932 booklet What is Truth? which says "The prophecy of the Bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfilment thereof, shows that the second coming of Christ dates from the fall of the year 1914." For some strange reason, the WTS book God's Kingdom (1973), p207-9, claimed this change from 1874 to 1914 came in 1943, when the WTS completed a new chronological system, which included moving Jerusalem's destruction from 606BC to 607BCE to keep the 1914 date while finally accounting for the non-existing "zero year." See also Proclaimers p133.
Note 3: Some Watchtower dates are NOT included in this listing, notably those who were derived from earlier chronology but were abandoned long before that year approached. One example: SiS7 p61, 62 says "The actual depopulation of the whole of Palestine did not occur until the year 135 A. D. (corresponding to our year 1980), . . . It is possible that A. D. 1980 may have something of special interest for Fleshly Israel, but certainly not for us. It is 70 years beyond 1910, the date when Pastor Russell gave his great witness to the Jewish people in the New York Hippodrome."
Key to Publication Codes
Three Worlds:
Nelson Barbour and C. T. Russell: Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World, Rochester, NY 1877. Written by Nelson Barbour. Russell financed the publication and is listed as co-author (Note: NOT a Watch Tower Society booklet, but still listed in their Watch Tower Publications Index).
WT:
C. T. Russell/Rutherford et al/anonymous: Zion's Watch Tower, Watch Tower and The Watchtower, periodical issued by Watch Tower Society. Semimonthly in English and most major languages. Editor from start in 1879 to 1916 was Charles Taze Russell. Abbreviation "repr" refers to page numbers in "reprints" issued by WTS in 1919 and still printed (1879-1916 volumes) by some Bible Student groups in the USA.
SiSx:
Studies in the Scriptures, volumes 1-6 by C. T. Russell and Volume 7 by Woodworth and Fisher. Series also named Millennial Dawn before 1904; see Proclaimers p53 footnote. Note that new revisions with sometimes substantial changes were reissued by Russell and the Watch Tower Society until at least 1926. Changes are not noted, and it's often difficult to know when a particular book is printed.
SiS1:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures I: The Divine Plan of the Ages, 1886.
SiS2:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures II: The Time is at Hand, 1889.
SiS3:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures III: Thy Kingdom Come, 1891.
SiS4:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures IV: The Day of Vengeance, 1897. Later called The Battle of Armageddon.
SiS5:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures V: The At-one-ment Between God and Man, 1899.
SiS6:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures VI: The New Creation, 1904.
SiS7:
Studies in the Scriptures VII: The Finished Mystery, 1917. This volume was claimed to be the posthumous work of Russell, but was really written by Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher under supervision of Rutherford.
Millions:
Joseph Rutherford: Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920. Booklet.
The Harp of God:
Joseph Rutherford: The Harp of God, 1921.
YB:
Rutherford/anonymous: Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses. Annual book with official reports and statement for the previous year, and usually giving the history of the JWs in one or two specific countries.
Our Lord's Return:
Joseph Rutherford: Our Lord's Return, 1929. Booklet.
Light I:
Joseph Rutherford: Light I, 1930.
Vindication I:
Joseph Rutherford: Vindication I, 1931.
What is Truth?:
Joseph Rutherford: What is Truth?, 1932. Booklet.
Awake!:
Anonymous: Periodical by Watch Tower Society. Semimonthly in English and most major languages.
Divine Purpose:
Anonymous: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959. Previous official history of the JWs.
Life Everlasting:
Anonymous: Life Everlasting - in Freedom of the Sons of God, 1966.
God's Kingdom:
Anonymous: God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years has Approached, 1973.
Revelation Climax:
Anonymous: Revelation - Its Great Climax is at Hand!, 1988. "Commentary" to the book of Revelation. JWs have a historicism (and premillenistic) interpretation of the book of Revelation, applying JW events in our time to symbols and events in the Revelation.
Proclaimers:
Anonymous: Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, 1993. Current official history of the JWs.
I thought so, a cultist. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and quacks like a duck........................................
So it seems we have all wasted our time on some one bound up in the fantasies and fanciful notions of a weird cult.
Physfan
Dear PhilP,
Can you please explain how the following texts are not atrocious acts performed by God or his people?
exempli gratia:
Judges 19:16-30 - Soon an old man came in through the gates on his way home from working in the fields. Most of the people who lived in Gibeah belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, but this man was originally from the hill country of Ephraim. He noticed that the Levite was just in town to spend the night. " Where are you going?" the old man asked. " Where did you come from?" "We've come from Bethlehem in Judah," the Levite answered. " We went there on a visit. Now we're going to the place where the LORD is worshiped, and later we will return to our home in the hill country of Ephraim. But no one here will let us spend the night in their home. We brought food for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves, so we don't need anything except a place to sleep." The old man said, "You are welcome to spend the night in my home and to be my guest, but don't stay out here!" The old man brought them into his house and fed their donkeys. Then he and his guests washed their feet and began eating and drinking. They were having a good time, when some worthless men of that town surrounded the house and started banging on the door and shouting, " A man came to your house tonight. Send him out, so we can have sex with him!" The old man went outside and said, " My friends, please don't commit such a horrible crime against a man who is a guest in my house. Let me send out my daughter instead. She's a virgin. And I'll even send out the man's wife. You can rape them or do whatever else you want, but please don't do such a horrible thing to this man." The men refused to listen, so the Levite grabbed his wife and shoved her outside. The men raped her and abused her all night long. Finally, they let her go just before sunrise, and it was almost daybreak when she went back to the house where her husband was staying. She collapsed at the door and lay there until sunrise. About that time, her husband woke up and got ready to leave. He opened the door and went outside, where he found his wife lying at the door with her hands on the doorstep. " Get up!" he said. " It's time to leave." But his wife didn't move. He lifted her body onto his donkey and left. When he got home, he took a butcher knife and cut her body into twelve pieces. Then he told some messengers, " Take one piece to each tribe of Israel and ask everyone if anything like this has ever happened since Israel left Egypt. Tell them to think about it, talk it over, and tell us what should be done."
Genesis 19:4-8 Before Lot and his guests could go to bed, every man in Sodom, young and old, came and stood outside his house and started shouting, "Where are your visitors? Send them out, so we can have sex with them!" Lot went outside and shut the door behind him. Then he said, "Friends, please don't do such a terrible thing! I have two daughters who have never been married. I'll bring them out, and you can do what you want with them. But don't harm these men. They are guests in my home."
Genesis 7:17-23 For forty days the rain poured down without stopping. And the water became deeper and deeper, until the boat started floating high above the ground. Finally, the mighty flood was so deep that even the highest mountain peaks were almost twenty-five feet below the surface of the water. Not a bird, animal, reptile, or human was left alive anywhere on earth. The LORD destroyed everything that breathed. Nothing was left alive except Noah and the others in the boat.
Genesis 19:23-26 The sun was coming up as Lot reached the town of Zoar, and the LORD sent burning sulfur down like rain on Sodom and Gomorrah. He destroyed those cities and everyone who lived in them, as well as their land and the trees and grass that grew there. On the way, Lot's wife looked back and was turned into a block of salt.
Deuteronomy 20:10-16 Before you attack a town that is far from your land, offer peace to the people who live there. If they surrender and open their town gates, they will become your slaves. But if they reject your offer of peace and try to fight, surround their town and attack. Then, after the LORD helps you capture it, kill all the men. Take the women and children as slaves and keep the livestock and everything else of value. Whenever you capture towns in the land the LORD your God is giving you, be sure to kill all the people and animals.
I understand your reasoning that the Great Deluge, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ten Plagues inflicted on Egypt, etc., were merited by the wickedness of humans, but what about the babies who would certainly not have lived long enough to be guilty of death? In the Old Testament we are given as examples of good, upstanding folks such as Abraham (who willingly offers his son up as a human sacrifice), Lot (who sleeps with his daughters and impregnates them), and Noah (who gets drunk and seems to engage in some kind of lewd behavior with his grandson, and later curses him for it). How are these not examples of reprehensible and atrocious behavior?
Also you say:
Dear PhilP,
Can you please explain how the following texts are not atrocious acts performed by God or his people?
exempli gratia:
Judges 19:16-30 - Soon an old man came in through the gates on his way home from working in the fields. Most of the people who lived in Gibeah belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, but this man was originally from the hill country of Ephraim. He noticed that the Levite was just in town to spend the night. " Where are you going?" the old man asked. " Where did you come from?" "We've come from Bethlehem in Judah," the Levite answered. " We went there on a visit. Now we're going to the place where the LORD is worshiped, and later we will return to our home in the hill country of Ephraim. But no one here will let us spend the night in their home. We brought food for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves, so we don't need anything except a place to sleep." The old man said, "You are welcome to spend the night in my home and to be my guest, but don't stay out here!" The old man brought them into his house and fed their donkeys. Then he and his guests washed their feet and began eating and drinking. They were having a good time, when some worthless men of that town surrounded the house and started banging on the door and shouting, " A man came to your house tonight. Send him out, so we can have sex with him!" The old man went outside and said, " My friends, please don't commit such a horrible crime against a man who is a guest in my house. Let me send out my daughter instead. She's a virgin. And I'll even send out the man's wife. You can rape them or do whatever else you want, but please don't do such a horrible thing to this man." The men refused to listen, so the Levite grabbed his wife and shoved her outside. The men raped her and abused her all night long. Finally, they let her go just before sunrise, and it was almost daybreak when she went back to the house where her husband was staying. She collapsed at the door and lay there until sunrise. About that time, her husband woke up and got ready to leave. He opened the door and went outside, where he found his wife lying at the door with her hands on the doorstep. " Get up!" he said. " It's time to leave." But his wife didn't move. He lifted her body onto his donkey and left. When he got home, he took a butcher knife and cut her body into twelve pieces. Then he told some messengers, " Take one piece to each tribe of Israel and ask everyone if anything like this has ever happened since Israel left Egypt. Tell them to think about it, talk it over, and tell us what should be done."
Genesis 19:4-8 Before Lot and his guests could go to bed, every man in Sodom, young and old, came and stood outside his house and started shouting, "Where are your visitors? Send them out, so we can have sex with them!" Lot went outside and shut the door behind him. Then he said, "Friends, please don't do such a terrible thing! I have two daughters who have never been married. I'll bring them out, and you can do what you want with them. But don't harm these men. They are guests in my home."
Genesis 7:17-23 For forty days the rain poured down without stopping. And the water became deeper and deeper, until the boat started floating high above the ground. Finally, the mighty flood was so deep that even the highest mountain peaks were almost twenty-five feet below the surface of the water. Not a bird, animal, reptile, or human was left alive anywhere on earth. The LORD destroyed everything that breathed. Nothing was left alive except Noah and the others in the boat.
Genesis 19:23-26 The sun was coming up as Lot reached the town of Zoar, and the LORD sent burning sulfur down like rain on Sodom and Gomorrah. He destroyed those cities and everyone who lived in them, as well as their land and the trees and grass that grew there. On the way, Lot's wife looked back and was turned into a block of salt.
Deuteronomy 20:10-16 Before you attack a town that is far from your land, offer peace to the people who live there. If they surrender and open their town gates, they will become your slaves. But if they reject your offer of peace and try to fight, surround their town and attack. Then, after the LORD helps you capture it, kill all the men. Take the women and children as slaves and keep the livestock and everything else of value. Whenever you capture towns in the land the LORD your God is giving you, be sure to kill all the people and animals.
I understand your reasoning that the Great Deluge, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ten Plagues inflicted on Egypt, etc., were merited by the wickedness of humans, but what about the babies who would certainly not have lived long enough to be guilty of death? In the Old Testament we are given as examples of good, upstanding folks such as Abraham (who willingly offers his son up as a human sacrifice), Lot (who sleeps with his daughters and impregnates them), and Noah (who gets drunk and seems to engage in some kind of lewd behavior with his grandson, and later curses him for it). How are these not examples of reprehensible and atrocious behavior?
Also you say:
What's worse is that neither the evolutionists, who know nothing of life, except for having a confused basic understanding of biology; or the creationists, have any idea of the true facts of life, or nature of the universe. Basically, I'm astonished at the total lack of understanding on both sides, from otherwise intelligent people. No offense intended to sincere, open-minded ones.
Now, I have to admit I am inclined to agree with you as far as creationists go (by the way, aren't you one of them?), but please explain how evolutionists have a "confused basic understanding of biology." (?!?!)
There you will find a section on what we believe, and it is only the exact same thing I could tell you, only put better.
PhilP: You "have not seen any challenges"? What about the documentation that I presented in regards to some of the false prophecies of your organization? Here's some more for you to consider:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/200...heticYears.html
Watchtower Dates - The Jehovah's Witnesses and prophetic years
The Watchtower Society (WTS) - the leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) - is famous for its dates. Individual Witnesses know about the current prophetic years (1914, 1918, etc) but are mostly completely ignorant about the history of their movement, and when asked is most likely to deny that the WTS ever said anything about the end of the world in 1914 and 1925. Even for a recent episode like 1975, the JWs will often flatly deny that the WTS ever proclaimed Armageddon within no more than a few months from October 1975.
This list is intended to be comprehensive, if not exhaustive. There's a massive amount of research by many individuals behind this short summary, but I can never guarantee there are no errors. If you find any, please let me know.
Dates
1798
End of 1260 days of Rev 12. Start of "the last days". Three Worlds (1877), p114. (see Key to publication codes)
Replaced by 1799 no later than 1889, with SiS2. [Note 1]
1799
Start of "the last days". Napoleon debased the pope and ended the 1260 days of Dan 7:25; 12:7; Rev 11:1-3. WT Jan-Feb 1889 [repr p1093]. SiS2 p256. SiS3 p58,63,64
Replaced by 1914 in 1930 [Note 2]
1829
End of the 1290 years (from 539AD) of Daniel 12:11, when Miller's movement started. SiS3 p84, SiS7 p40, 60, 163. Our Lord's Return (1929) p27.
Abandoned in 1930
1844
Miller's "end of the world." To Russell, start of 30 year "tarrying time," corresponding to 30 years from Jesus' birth to his baptism. SiS2 p240
Abandoned in 1930
1846
End of the 2300 days, G. Storrs and others abandoned false doctrines, "sanctuary cleansed". Also start of "evangelical alliance" between protestant churches, called "spiritistic". SiS3 p108, SiS7 p163.
Abandoned in 1930
1873
6000 years of human existance ends, start of seventh millenium: THE millenium of Revelation; the Day of the Lord. See SiS2 foreword, p39. (New chronology making 1975 the end of 6000 years was adopted in 1943, but 1975 was not made an official prophetic date until 1966, with Life Everlasting.)
Abandoned in 1930
1874
The start of Christ's invisible presence. Russell's most important date. Three Worlds p175, SiS2 p170, Our Lord's Return p27, Proclaimers p133 footnote. Until around 1904, Russell taught that this year marked the start of the Battle of Armageddon, WT 1/15/92 p21-3 [repr p1355]. SiS2, p101.
Abandoned in 1930; [Note 2] WTS itself claims it was abandoned in 1943
1875
End of "Great Jubilee Cycle." End of 1335 days in Dan 12:12. The invisible resurrection of the saints started. (Note also that Russell held that the "Biblical year" 1875 started Oct 1874.) Three Worlds p108.
Idea of invisible resurrection in 1875 replaced by 1878 in 1881?
1878
End of gospel age, the rapture of the saints. Three Worlds p68; Proclaimers p632; Divine Purpose p19.
Naturally abandoned after 1878
1878
Heavenly resurrection of dead saints. God's favor returning to the Jews. Kingdom of God started to exercise power. WT Oct 1879 [repr p39]. SiS2 p101. SiS6, p663. Millions (1920) p27-8. 1928 editions of The Harp of God had removed this date from the text (see pp236, 244 in earlier editions).
Abandoned in 1928
1881
Rapture of the saints, including Russell and other Bible Students. WT Jan 1881 [repr p180], Dec 1880 [repr p172], compare May 1881 [repr p224].
Abandoned and even denied from May 1881
1881
Close of "high calling" to be among 144.000. Fall of Babylon. Proclaimers p632.
Replaced by 1918 in 1922?. Close of "high calling" later moved to 1935
1910
Expected rapture of the Saints, based on measurments in corridor in the Great Pyramid of Gizeh. SiS3, p364, versions issued before 1910.
Naturally abandoned after 1910
1914
The end of this world, Christ's literal return, the end of Armageddon and latest possible date for rapture. Jews expected to return to God's favour.
"Present truth" until the end of 1914, but replaced by 1915 from around 1912 to Aug 1914 (start of WWI, which was felt to somehow fulfill the above prophecies about 1914).
1914
Christ's invisible return, start of reign as King, end of last days. "Gentile times" ended, but this has no visible effect, except an (JW-imagined) increase in violence, wars, pestilence, earthquakes and other calamities since that year.
Current JW doctrine. From 1922 this was held to be start of Christ's *reign*, from 1930 also the start of invisible presence (earlier held to be 1874). [Note 2] Until recently, the WTS taught that some of those who experienced the events in 1914 would be alive to see the end of the world. This "1914 generation" doctrine was removed in November 1995. See WT 11/1 1995 p17. The "Creator's promise" about the end of the world before the 1914-generation died was removed from masthead (p4) of Awake! in 11/8 1995 issue. Whole idea of "generation" in Mt 24:34 being specific individuals is now abandoned.
1915
The end of the world. From ~1912 until start of WWI this year replaced 1914 in Russell's writings, since 2520 years from 606BC ends in 1915 not 1914 as Russell had thought. The fact that there is no zero year was "forgotten" when some events happened in 1914. In 1943 the idea that had been promoted in SiS7, namely to move Jerusalem's destruction from 606 to 607BC, was officially adopted (The fact that Jerusalem according to Bible chronology fell in 587BC does not interfere with Watchtower chronology.)
Year abandoned after start if WWI
1918
False religion, especially Christendom, to be destroyed. Demons would enter the minds of clergy, the "swine class", causing them to do stupid things that provokes "the masses" to destroy them. "Church members by millions" thus killed by God. SiS7 p128, 485.
Naturally abandoned after 1918
1918
Fall of Babylon, close of call to be among 144.000. This year is still held by JWs to be date for fall of Babylon, "all false religion." See Revelation Climax p260 which says "So by 1919 Babylon the Great had fallen".
Current JW doctrine. Close of "high calling" was later moved to 1935.
1919
The Bible Student/Watchtower movement chosen by Christ to be only "channel" of communication from God to men.
Current JW doctrine.
1920
Worldwide anarchy, collapse and fall of all earthly governments. SiS7 p258.
Naturally abandoned after 1920
1925
The end of the world immediately following the resurrection of "men of old" (Biblical heroes listed in Hebrews chapter 11). Establishment of Kingdom in Palestine. SiS7 p128, Millions p88,97. Very definite statements in WT 6/15 1922; 4/1 1923, elsewhere.
Naturally abandoned after 1925, even though the date itself was held to be somehow fixed in the Scriptures even as late as in 1931 (Vindication I p338).
1931/32
The "establishment of the Kingdom in Power." Based on Ezek 40:1, which dates a certain prophetic message to "the fourteenth year after the city was conquered", Rutherford added 14 years to 1918 to get 1932. See SiS7 p569. Later printings and translations of this book seems to have brought the realization that to get to the 14th year one adds 13, not 14, so the prophecy was changed to point to 1931.
Silently abandoned after the other prophecies, notably 1918 and 1925, failed to be fulfilled.
1935
Close of "high calling" to be of the 144.000. From this date, JWs have taught that the "great Company/Crowd" in Rev 7 will live on Earth, not in heaven. The "Great Crowd", all JWs except ~8000 living now, is not considered anointed Christians, is not "born again," do not partake in communion and does not have Christ as mediator. They expect eternal life on Earth. See WT 6/15 1992 p23; Proclaimers (1993) p166. This date is justified only on the fact that the doctrine about earthly hope for "great crowd" was created in 1935.
Current JW doctrine
1941
WW2 was expected to end in Armageddon, God's War. WT 9/15 1941 p288 talked about the "remaining months before Armageddon."
Idea abandoned in 1943, after death of Rutherford, when the Watchtower Society started to proclaim a "very short" period of peace after WWII.
1951
This was 37 years after 1914, like Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, which was 37 years after Christ's death (WTS chronology). Some WT articles in 1950 hinted strongly to this parallell. WT 11/1 1950 p407; 9/1 1950 p277; compare WT 3/15 1951 p179 and 4/1 1951 p214 both pointing out that "we are 37 years into the 'time of the end' of this world."
Idea was abandoned in WT 9/1 1952 p542
1954
Theoretical length of 1914-generation after the old "30-40 years" definition. See WT 9/1 1952 p542. "Generation" idea based on Matt 24:34, but it was finally abandoned in WT Nov 1, 1995.
Replaced by 70-80 year generation in 1952
1975
End of 6000 year of human history after WTS chronology. Strongly hinted to be end of the world; could only be a matter of "days and months, not years" before Armageddon. Life Everlasting p26-30; WT 7/15 1967 p446-7; 8/15 1968 p499; 5/1 1975 p 285. See also YB 1980 p30-31. (See What Happened in 1975?)
Abandoned and sometimes even denied after 1975
1984
Object for much speculation about maximum length of generation, based on 70 years from 1914 and Psalm 90:10. See WT 9/1 1952 p542; WT 12/1 1968 p715.
Abandoned silently as date approached.
1986
Declared by United Nations to be "International Year of Peace," which caused much expectations with JWs about the expected declaration of "peace and security", a sign of the imminent end based on a special interpretation of 1Th 5:3. WT 10/1 1985 p18.
Silently forgotten after 1986
1994
Object for much speculation about maximum length of generation, like 1984. See WT 9/1 1952 p542; WT 12/1 1968 p715.
Abandoned silently as date approached.
2000
End of world expected to come before end of century. WT 1/1 1989 p12 (work to be completed "in our 20th century", text changed in bound volume); WT 10/15 1980 p31 ("highly improbable" that this world continues to 2000); 3/1 1984 p18-19 ("end much closer than [2000]").
Notes
Note 1: References to this beginning of the "last days" in 1798/9 is found to be remarkably absent in many of Russell's writings. In fact, 1798 was a part of in Barbour's chronology, with the (alleged) start of papal rule in 538AD as a basis year, but Russell replaced it with 1799 (539AD basis) in the beginning of 1889. The 1799 date was emphasised as late as in Our Lord's Return, a Rutherford booklet from 1929, but evidently abandoned with almost all of the old chronology in 1930, with Light I. See Note 2.
Note 2: Sometime between the booklet Our Lord's Return in 1929 and Vindication I in 1931 Rutherford rejected almost all of Russell's old chronology and many other central doctrines. The book Light I (1930) emphasised the time from 1879 to 1918 as a time of preparation, and 1918 as the coming of the Lord to his temple. 1914 is stated to be the year God put Christ on his throne. 1874 is understood to be wrong. The first explicit statement about Christ's "parousia" from 1914 seems to be in the 1932 booklet What is Truth? which says "The prophecy of the Bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfilment thereof, shows that the second coming of Christ dates from the fall of the year 1914." For some strange reason, the WTS book God's Kingdom (1973), p207-9, claimed this change from 1874 to 1914 came in 1943, when the WTS completed a new chronological system, which included moving Jerusalem's destruction from 606BC to 607BCE to keep the 1914 date while finally accounting for the non-existing "zero year." See also Proclaimers p133.
Note 3: Some Watchtower dates are NOT included in this listing, notably those who were derived from earlier chronology but were abandoned long before that year approached. One example: SiS7 p61, 62 says "The actual depopulation of the whole of Palestine did not occur until the year 135 A. D. (corresponding to our year 1980), . . . It is possible that A. D. 1980 may have something of special interest for Fleshly Israel, but certainly not for us. It is 70 years beyond 1910, the date when Pastor Russell gave his great witness to the Jewish people in the New York Hippodrome."
Key to Publication Codes
Three Worlds:
Nelson Barbour and C. T. Russell: Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World, Rochester, NY 1877. Written by Nelson Barbour. Russell financed the publication and is listed as co-author (Note: NOT a Watch Tower Society booklet, but still listed in their Watch Tower Publications Index).
WT:
C. T. Russell/Rutherford et al/anonymous: Zion's Watch Tower, Watch Tower and The Watchtower, periodical issued by Watch Tower Society. Semimonthly in English and most major languages. Editor from start in 1879 to 1916 was Charles Taze Russell. Abbreviation "repr" refers to page numbers in "reprints" issued by WTS in 1919 and still printed (1879-1916 volumes) by some Bible Student groups in the USA.
SiSx:
Studies in the Scriptures, volumes 1-6 by C. T. Russell and Volume 7 by Woodworth and Fisher. Series also named Millennial Dawn before 1904; see Proclaimers p53 footnote. Note that new revisions with sometimes substantial changes were reissued by Russell and the Watch Tower Society until at least 1926. Changes are not noted, and it's often difficult to know when a particular book is printed.
SiS1:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures I: The Divine Plan of the Ages, 1886.
SiS2:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures II: The Time is at Hand, 1889.
SiS3:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures III: Thy Kingdom Come, 1891.
SiS4:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures IV: The Day of Vengeance, 1897. Later called The Battle of Armageddon.
SiS5:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures V: The At-one-ment Between God and Man, 1899.
SiS6:
C. T. Russell: Studies in the Scriptures VI: The New Creation, 1904.
SiS7:
Studies in the Scriptures VII: The Finished Mystery, 1917. This volume was claimed to be the posthumous work of Russell, but was really written by Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher under supervision of Rutherford.
Millions:
Joseph Rutherford: Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920. Booklet.
The Harp of God:
Joseph Rutherford: The Harp of God, 1921.
YB:
Rutherford/anonymous: Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses. Annual book with official reports and statement for the previous year, and usually giving the history of the JWs in one or two specific countries.
Our Lord's Return:
Joseph Rutherford: Our Lord's Return, 1929. Booklet.
Light I:
Joseph Rutherford: Light I, 1930.
Vindication I:
Joseph Rutherford: Vindication I, 1931.
What is Truth?:
Joseph Rutherford: What is Truth?, 1932. Booklet.
Awake!:
Anonymous: Periodical by Watch Tower Society. Semimonthly in English and most major languages.
Divine Purpose:
Anonymous: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, 1959. Previous official history of the JWs.
Life Everlasting:
Anonymous: Life Everlasting - in Freedom of the Sons of God, 1966.
God's Kingdom:
Anonymous: God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years has Approached, 1973.
Revelation Climax:
Anonymous: Revelation - Its Great Climax is at Hand!, 1988. "Commentary" to the book of Revelation. JWs have a historicism (and premillenistic) interpretation of the book of Revelation, applying JW events in our time to symbols and events in the Revelation.
Proclaimers:
Anonymous: Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, 1993. Current official history of the JWs.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
Well newguy, I see it didn't take you long to revert.
"Revert" to what? Confronting your lies? I never gave that up in the first place. Keep your tract. Based on the past history of all of the FALSE PROPHECIES given by your "truthful" organization, I think I can safely surmise that the tract isn't worth the paper that it's printed on. Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.
"Revert" to what? Confronting your lies? I never gave that up in the first place. Keep your tract. Based on the past history of all of the FALSE PROPHECIES given by your "truthful" organization, I think I can safely surmise that the tract isn't worth the paper that it's printed on. Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.
You can't really convince him due to past failures. It's our nature to discount those.
However, we can ask the PhilP pick a prophecy upon which he holds his faith, and then hold his faith to an absolute standard with regards to that prophecy. Pick one that's 'due' in the next couple of years and promise that you won't belive the JW line if the prophecy is false.
It's the best way to go.
However, we can ask the PhilP pick a prophecy upon which he holds his faith, and then hold his faith to an absolute standard with regards to that prophecy. Pick one that's 'due' in the next couple of years and promise that you won't belive the JW line if the prophecy is false.
It's the best way to go.
QUOTE (PhilP+)
btw vkamath, I know how you feel, as the physical man cannot understand spiritual things, as they are foolishness to him. Let's leave it at that.
What is a "physical" man? Isn't every man a "physical" man?
If by "physical man" you actually mean the rational man, then you are right.
What is a "physical" man? Isn't every man a "physical" man?
If by "physical man" you actually mean the rational man, then you are right.
It seems PhilP not only knows nothing about the Hebrew language, or Greek, but also knows nothing about the history of his faiths many mistakes, nor the history of the christien religion in general.
But then I am sure the Elders do not teach such things, or there would not be any JW's left to go door to door. Which brings up another point of contention, according to JW, only Elders can give a correct interpetation of the bible scriptures. One JW who came to my door insisted that this was not true. I went to a service with her, and the sermon was on that very topic. She was in tears as she fled the church. This is completly against the Bible, but then they only use the parts they like.
PhilP said "One further thing, I really have not seen any challenges to my beliefs in this thread, otherwise I would have commented obviously" Well here is one, in case you missed my first post.
Get any version of the bible you can find that is written in Hebrew and sticks to the original text, and see of you can find the name Jehovah in it anywhere. Then explain to me how it is the TRUE name of God. When you can't find it, try the Zohar. It is a huge collection of Jewish priests writtings, of which the name of God is a frequent topic. See if you can find it there. See if you can find it anywhere before the first bibles were printed. True name of God, BULL. A JW would not know the true name of God if they were stareing at it.
If you want to talk about spirtual matters or religion in general, fine, But if you want to preach your religion, stick to going door to door. You will find more gullable people with that approach to spread your BS to.
But then I am sure the Elders do not teach such things, or there would not be any JW's left to go door to door. Which brings up another point of contention, according to JW, only Elders can give a correct interpetation of the bible scriptures. One JW who came to my door insisted that this was not true. I went to a service with her, and the sermon was on that very topic. She was in tears as she fled the church. This is completly against the Bible, but then they only use the parts they like.
PhilP said "One further thing, I really have not seen any challenges to my beliefs in this thread, otherwise I would have commented obviously" Well here is one, in case you missed my first post.
Get any version of the bible you can find that is written in Hebrew and sticks to the original text, and see of you can find the name Jehovah in it anywhere. Then explain to me how it is the TRUE name of God. When you can't find it, try the Zohar. It is a huge collection of Jewish priests writtings, of which the name of God is a frequent topic. See if you can find it there. See if you can find it anywhere before the first bibles were printed. True name of God, BULL. A JW would not know the true name of God if they were stareing at it.
If you want to talk about spirtual matters or religion in general, fine, But if you want to preach your religion, stick to going door to door. You will find more gullable people with that approach to spread your BS to.
QUOTE
One further thing, I really have not seen any challenges to my beliefs in this thread, otherwise I would have commented obviously, but if any wish to know what we believe and why, there's nothing better you could do than to visit our official Web site at www.watchtower.org
I thought so, a cultist. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and quacks like a duck........................................
So it seems we have all wasted our time on some one bound up in the fantasies and fanciful notions of a weird cult.
Physfan
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 10 2006, 11:40 AM)
newguy,
I find the language of scripture a bit hard to understand. It seems we would have to believe and meet some conditions to see Jesus.
You are free to hold this belief. Also, it is good that it has given you the desired results. But if you say you actually saw Jesus in person, I would find that hard to believe.
I have seen Christ in the Mirror ....many times and no one is even the slightest bit impressed. I was high on Acid at the time. But no one can know how real it was unless they ask Him, one day can they? So I don't worry about it. It was real at the time, real for a girl of 18 who saved the World everyday....whilst I could not ingest anything for two months, but for water and tobacco smoke. Molecules/particles were apparent to me in all food, moving with a speed no one else could observe. I saw it as living on the plate. I ingested energy strait from the Mana of Hawaiian aether...lol I became a fugilist who could not take myself out with a handful of knives, after a couple of months of running all over Kona and fasting and swimming and walking daily.
Anyway.
Seems that I am more interesting now that I switched from the fanatisism of youth, (a tormented one) to the Losing my Religion of adulthood....still I think both worlds have a place in the Life of Man.
Who is to condemn?
The human ship is not so damn crowded is it, that we can't fit all kinds of fools. And give them food?
But when a person babbles constantly on a subject one can't grasp, or relate to, that person is gonna look for someone other ~ to relate to.
They don't have to be so abusive, to a brother... before they move on but, sometimes that is fun. And we all deserve to be having some fun in our day.
Life can be boring.
We all need different things from life.
Why make your brother suffer through your obsessions.... Christ Concious one?
He is not really listening to you, nor should He be.
He has his own Worlds to inhabit.
I am gunna go now....
i know I preach in my own way. It just makes me sick!
T.K.
I find the language of scripture a bit hard to understand. It seems we would have to believe and meet some conditions to see Jesus.
You are free to hold this belief. Also, it is good that it has given you the desired results. But if you say you actually saw Jesus in person, I would find that hard to believe.
I have seen Christ in the Mirror ....many times and no one is even the slightest bit impressed. I was high on Acid at the time. But no one can know how real it was unless they ask Him, one day can they? So I don't worry about it. It was real at the time, real for a girl of 18 who saved the World everyday....whilst I could not ingest anything for two months, but for water and tobacco smoke. Molecules/particles were apparent to me in all food, moving with a speed no one else could observe. I saw it as living on the plate. I ingested energy strait from the Mana of Hawaiian aether...lol I became a fugilist who could not take myself out with a handful of knives, after a couple of months of running all over Kona and fasting and swimming and walking daily.
Anyway.
Seems that I am more interesting now that I switched from the fanatisism of youth, (a tormented one) to the Losing my Religion of adulthood....still I think both worlds have a place in the Life of Man.
Who is to condemn?
The human ship is not so damn crowded is it, that we can't fit all kinds of fools. And give them food?
But when a person babbles constantly on a subject one can't grasp, or relate to, that person is gonna look for someone other ~ to relate to.
They don't have to be so abusive, to a brother... before they move on but, sometimes that is fun. And we all deserve to be having some fun in our day.
Life can be boring.
We all need different things from life.
Why make your brother suffer through your obsessions.... Christ Concious one?
He is not really listening to you, nor should He be.
He has his own Worlds to inhabit.
I am gunna go now....
i know I preach in my own way. It just makes me sick!
T.K.
QUOTE
"'I have read bits of the bible and I don't like the slavery, beatings, rape, incest, murders, genocide, blind wrath of the principal protaganist and the wimpering servitude.
It is bizarre that some peole actually believe this nonsense.
Physfan'
What an absurd comment! I speedread obnoxious, disrespectful, and hateful claptrap, and don't respond in like manner. Thus I will skip the majority of your post.
But so you don't like that? Who does? Obviously the perpetrators must. Atrocities like that have and still do occur throughout history. The Bible record is there to teach lessons and warnings to God's people. Neither God nor his people have ever acted in that manner, though many of his opposers do."
It is bizarre that some peole actually believe this nonsense.
Physfan'
What an absurd comment! I speedread obnoxious, disrespectful, and hateful claptrap, and don't respond in like manner. Thus I will skip the majority of your post.
But so you don't like that? Who does? Obviously the perpetrators must. Atrocities like that have and still do occur throughout history. The Bible record is there to teach lessons and warnings to God's people. Neither God nor his people have ever acted in that manner, though many of his opposers do."
Dear PhilP,
Can you please explain how the following texts are not atrocious acts performed by God or his people?
exempli gratia:
Judges 19:16-30 - Soon an old man came in through the gates on his way home from working in the fields. Most of the people who lived in Gibeah belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, but this man was originally from the hill country of Ephraim. He noticed that the Levite was just in town to spend the night. " Where are you going?" the old man asked. " Where did you come from?" "We've come from Bethlehem in Judah," the Levite answered. " We went there on a visit. Now we're going to the place where the LORD is worshiped, and later we will return to our home in the hill country of Ephraim. But no one here will let us spend the night in their home. We brought food for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves, so we don't need anything except a place to sleep." The old man said, "You are welcome to spend the night in my home and to be my guest, but don't stay out here!" The old man brought them into his house and fed their donkeys. Then he and his guests washed their feet and began eating and drinking. They were having a good time, when some worthless men of that town surrounded the house and started banging on the door and shouting, " A man came to your house tonight. Send him out, so we can have sex with him!" The old man went outside and said, " My friends, please don't commit such a horrible crime against a man who is a guest in my house. Let me send out my daughter instead. She's a virgin. And I'll even send out the man's wife. You can rape them or do whatever else you want, but please don't do such a horrible thing to this man." The men refused to listen, so the Levite grabbed his wife and shoved her outside. The men raped her and abused her all night long. Finally, they let her go just before sunrise, and it was almost daybreak when she went back to the house where her husband was staying. She collapsed at the door and lay there until sunrise. About that time, her husband woke up and got ready to leave. He opened the door and went outside, where he found his wife lying at the door with her hands on the doorstep. " Get up!" he said. " It's time to leave." But his wife didn't move. He lifted her body onto his donkey and left. When he got home, he took a butcher knife and cut her body into twelve pieces. Then he told some messengers, " Take one piece to each tribe of Israel and ask everyone if anything like this has ever happened since Israel left Egypt. Tell them to think about it, talk it over, and tell us what should be done."
Genesis 19:4-8 Before Lot and his guests could go to bed, every man in Sodom, young and old, came and stood outside his house and started shouting, "Where are your visitors? Send them out, so we can have sex with them!" Lot went outside and shut the door behind him. Then he said, "Friends, please don't do such a terrible thing! I have two daughters who have never been married. I'll bring them out, and you can do what you want with them. But don't harm these men. They are guests in my home."
Genesis 7:17-23 For forty days the rain poured down without stopping. And the water became deeper and deeper, until the boat started floating high above the ground. Finally, the mighty flood was so deep that even the highest mountain peaks were almost twenty-five feet below the surface of the water. Not a bird, animal, reptile, or human was left alive anywhere on earth. The LORD destroyed everything that breathed. Nothing was left alive except Noah and the others in the boat.
Genesis 19:23-26 The sun was coming up as Lot reached the town of Zoar, and the LORD sent burning sulfur down like rain on Sodom and Gomorrah. He destroyed those cities and everyone who lived in them, as well as their land and the trees and grass that grew there. On the way, Lot's wife looked back and was turned into a block of salt.
Deuteronomy 20:10-16 Before you attack a town that is far from your land, offer peace to the people who live there. If they surrender and open their town gates, they will become your slaves. But if they reject your offer of peace and try to fight, surround their town and attack. Then, after the LORD helps you capture it, kill all the men. Take the women and children as slaves and keep the livestock and everything else of value. Whenever you capture towns in the land the LORD your God is giving you, be sure to kill all the people and animals.
I understand your reasoning that the Great Deluge, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ten Plagues inflicted on Egypt, etc., were merited by the wickedness of humans, but what about the babies who would certainly not have lived long enough to be guilty of death? In the Old Testament we are given as examples of good, upstanding folks such as Abraham (who willingly offers his son up as a human sacrifice), Lot (who sleeps with his daughters and impregnates them), and Noah (who gets drunk and seems to engage in some kind of lewd behavior with his grandson, and later curses him for it). How are these not examples of reprehensible and atrocious behavior?
Also you say:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "'I have read bits of the bible and I don't like the slavery, beatings, rape, incest, murders, genocide, blind wrath of the principal protaganist and the wimpering servitude. It is bizarre that some peole actually believe this nonsense. Physfan' What an absurd comment! I speedread obnoxious, disrespectful, and hateful claptrap, and don't respond in like manner. Thus I will skip the majority of your post. But so you don't like that? Who does? Obviously the perpetrators must. Atrocities like that have and still do occur throughout history. The Bible record is there to teach lessons and warnings to God's people. Neither God nor his people have ever acted in that manner, though many of his opposers do." |
Dear PhilP,
Can you please explain how the following texts are not atrocious acts performed by God or his people?
exempli gratia:
Judges 19:16-30 - Soon an old man came in through the gates on his way home from working in the fields. Most of the people who lived in Gibeah belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, but this man was originally from the hill country of Ephraim. He noticed that the Levite was just in town to spend the night. " Where are you going?" the old man asked. " Where did you come from?" "We've come from Bethlehem in Judah," the Levite answered. " We went there on a visit. Now we're going to the place where the LORD is worshiped, and later we will return to our home in the hill country of Ephraim. But no one here will let us spend the night in their home. We brought food for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves, so we don't need anything except a place to sleep." The old man said, "You are welcome to spend the night in my home and to be my guest, but don't stay out here!" The old man brought them into his house and fed their donkeys. Then he and his guests washed their feet and began eating and drinking. They were having a good time, when some worthless men of that town surrounded the house and started banging on the door and shouting, " A man came to your house tonight. Send him out, so we can have sex with him!" The old man went outside and said, " My friends, please don't commit such a horrible crime against a man who is a guest in my house. Let me send out my daughter instead. She's a virgin. And I'll even send out the man's wife. You can rape them or do whatever else you want, but please don't do such a horrible thing to this man." The men refused to listen, so the Levite grabbed his wife and shoved her outside. The men raped her and abused her all night long. Finally, they let her go just before sunrise, and it was almost daybreak when she went back to the house where her husband was staying. She collapsed at the door and lay there until sunrise. About that time, her husband woke up and got ready to leave. He opened the door and went outside, where he found his wife lying at the door with her hands on the doorstep. " Get up!" he said. " It's time to leave." But his wife didn't move. He lifted her body onto his donkey and left. When he got home, he took a butcher knife and cut her body into twelve pieces. Then he told some messengers, " Take one piece to each tribe of Israel and ask everyone if anything like this has ever happened since Israel left Egypt. Tell them to think about it, talk it over, and tell us what should be done."
Genesis 19:4-8 Before Lot and his guests could go to bed, every man in Sodom, young and old, came and stood outside his house and started shouting, "Where are your visitors? Send them out, so we can have sex with them!" Lot went outside and shut the door behind him. Then he said, "Friends, please don't do such a terrible thing! I have two daughters who have never been married. I'll bring them out, and you can do what you want with them. But don't harm these men. They are guests in my home."
Genesis 7:17-23 For forty days the rain poured down without stopping. And the water became deeper and deeper, until the boat started floating high above the ground. Finally, the mighty flood was so deep that even the highest mountain peaks were almost twenty-five feet below the surface of the water. Not a bird, animal, reptile, or human was left alive anywhere on earth. The LORD destroyed everything that breathed. Nothing was left alive except Noah and the others in the boat.
Genesis 19:23-26 The sun was coming up as Lot reached the town of Zoar, and the LORD sent burning sulfur down like rain on Sodom and Gomorrah. He destroyed those cities and everyone who lived in them, as well as their land and the trees and grass that grew there. On the way, Lot's wife looked back and was turned into a block of salt.
Deuteronomy 20:10-16 Before you attack a town that is far from your land, offer peace to the people who live there. If they surrender and open their town gates, they will become your slaves. But if they reject your offer of peace and try to fight, surround their town and attack. Then, after the LORD helps you capture it, kill all the men. Take the women and children as slaves and keep the livestock and everything else of value. Whenever you capture towns in the land the LORD your God is giving you, be sure to kill all the people and animals.
I understand your reasoning that the Great Deluge, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ten Plagues inflicted on Egypt, etc., were merited by the wickedness of humans, but what about the babies who would certainly not have lived long enough to be guilty of death? In the Old Testament we are given as examples of good, upstanding folks such as Abraham (who willingly offers his son up as a human sacrifice), Lot (who sleeps with his daughters and impregnates them), and Noah (who gets drunk and seems to engage in some kind of lewd behavior with his grandson, and later curses him for it). How are these not examples of reprehensible and atrocious behavior?
Also you say:
What's worse is that neither the evolutionists, who know nothing of life, except for having a confused basic understanding of biology; or the creationists, have any idea of the true facts of life, or nature of the universe. Basically, I'm astonished at the total lack of understanding on both sides, from otherwise intelligent people. No offense intended to sincere, open-minded ones.
Now, I have to admit I am inclined to agree with you as far as creationists go (by the way, aren't you one of them?), but please explain how evolutionists have a "confused basic understanding of biology." (?!?!)
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.