Jump to content

Nnaemeka

Member
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Nnaemeka got a reaction from Madame Mela in What is a Christian Man's MORAL responsibility to protect his own life, or that of his immediate or spiritual family?   
    Everyone has to live with his or her conscience but it is a protection to adhere to the advice of the faithful and discreet slave. Although someone could point to the violence in the world as a rational for why he should carry, the scriptures have consistently advised us to rely on Jehovah both spiritually and physically. When Peter attacked Malchus he must have been thinking: "Attack is the best form of defense. Look at the large crowd with swords and clubs from the high priest. If I attack first, it would be a signal for Jesus to use his power to help us." Jesus would have none of that. He relied on Jehovah. And we should do.
    I heard of the story of a Kingdom Hall bombed in Australia. It was very sad. It's part of the signs of the last days but that would not be a rationale for us to take to arms. One of the fruitage of the spirit is self-control. That is what we need in occasions like this when we find ourselves under threat. Against the natural inclination to take arms and fight back, we prefer to leave it in the hands of the authorities. That is Godly wisdom. Remember King Hezekiah. Despite the fact that he was staring at death in the face when Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem, he relied on Jehovah. We want to do the same.
    Come to think of it. Would you say that because many politicians are corrupt that you'd go into politics because as a Christian you'd bring about the needed changes? That would be a natural inclination of every human. But the bible shows consistently that Christians should not engage in politics. As a Christian you'd want to follow bible principles. That is the same with the firearms issue. We want to follow bible principles rather than our natural inclination.
  2. Thanks
    Nnaemeka got a reaction from Madame Mela in What is a Christian Man's MORAL responsibility to protect his own life, or that of his immediate or spiritual family?   
    You should realize that Jesus was aware that there were so many things his apostles had to learn and overcome such as fear of man and the customs they grew up with. Jesus did not set out correcting every fault they had instantly but when the occasion arises. Realize that in the Luke 22 you quoted when the apostles showed him two sword he answered them: "It is enough." He went on to emphasize that their confidence should not lie in weapons when he laid down a principle before them right at the moment when Peter cut off Malchus' ears. This was stated in Matthew 26:52 thus:
    Jesus admonished Peter for using one of those swords. Just picture this scenario with the one you pointed out in your original post. They are both similar. But Jesus reproved Peter for falling on a weapon to protect himself and his master. Jesus laid a principle that all his followers will do well to follow. Jesus then in the next verse showed why it is wrong to do as you imagined in your original post scenario - that is, bring weapons to the Kingdom Hall. He emphasized to his disciples that he had legions at his beck and call - invisible spirit weapons - but in this time of death, he did not and would not use it when he said in Matthew 26:53 thus:
    That idea above, allowing Jehovah's will to be done irrespective if your life is in danger, does not show Jesus to be a coward as you contend. Or do you think he also is one? I doubt it. Jesus was bold and courageous to exercise self control at the darkest moment in his life and he never flinched from his resolve. We do well to follow his steps closely as Peter urges in 1 Peter 2:21.
  3. Like
    Nnaemeka got a reaction from Madame Mela in What is a Christian Man's MORAL responsibility to protect his own life, or that of his immediate or spiritual family?   
    Well, it's very sad but such a scenario wouldn't justify a Christian coming with firearms to the Kingdom Hall, Jehovah's place of worship or even keeping one for that matter. I think you are examining the Bible's teachings from a physical point of view that is why two verses are pertinent for you to consider.
    1. 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 that says:
    2. Psalm 34:7 that says:
    Thanks 
  4. Upvote
    Nnaemeka got a reaction from Noble Berean in What is a Christian Man's MORAL responsibility to protect his own life, or that of his immediate or spiritual family?   
    You should realize that Jesus was aware that there were so many things his apostles had to learn and overcome such as fear of man and the customs they grew up with. Jesus did not set out correcting every fault they had instantly but when the occasion arises. Realize that in the Luke 22 you quoted when the apostles showed him two sword he answered them: "It is enough." He went on to emphasize that their confidence should not lie in weapons when he laid down a principle before them right at the moment when Peter cut off Malchus' ears. This was stated in Matthew 26:52 thus:
    Jesus admonished Peter for using one of those swords. Just picture this scenario with the one you pointed out in your original post. They are both similar. But Jesus reproved Peter for falling on a weapon to protect himself and his master. Jesus laid a principle that all his followers will do well to follow. Jesus then in the next verse showed why it is wrong to do as you imagined in your original post scenario - that is, bring weapons to the Kingdom Hall. He emphasized to his disciples that he had legions at his beck and call - invisible spirit weapons - but in this time of death, he did not and would not use it when he said in Matthew 26:53 thus:
    That idea above, allowing Jehovah's will to be done irrespective if your life is in danger, does not show Jesus to be a coward as you contend. Or do you think he also is one? I doubt it. Jesus was bold and courageous to exercise self control at the darkest moment in his life and he never flinched from his resolve. We do well to follow his steps closely as Peter urges in 1 Peter 2:21.
  5. Like
    Nnaemeka got a reaction from Melinda Mills in What is a Christian Man's MORAL responsibility to protect his own life, or that of his immediate or spiritual family?   
    Everyone has to live with his or her conscience but it is a protection to adhere to the advice of the faithful and discreet slave. Although someone could point to the violence in the world as a rational for why he should carry, the scriptures have consistently advised us to rely on Jehovah both spiritually and physically. When Peter attacked Malchus he must have been thinking: "Attack is the best form of defense. Look at the large crowd with swords and clubs from the high priest. If I attack first, it would be a signal for Jesus to use his power to help us." Jesus would have none of that. He relied on Jehovah. And we should do.
    I heard of the story of a Kingdom Hall bombed in Australia. It was very sad. It's part of the signs of the last days but that would not be a rationale for us to take to arms. One of the fruitage of the spirit is self-control. That is what we need in occasions like this when we find ourselves under threat. Against the natural inclination to take arms and fight back, we prefer to leave it in the hands of the authorities. That is Godly wisdom. Remember King Hezekiah. Despite the fact that he was staring at death in the face when Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem, he relied on Jehovah. We want to do the same.
    Come to think of it. Would you say that because many politicians are corrupt that you'd go into politics because as a Christian you'd bring about the needed changes? That would be a natural inclination of every human. But the bible shows consistently that Christians should not engage in politics. As a Christian you'd want to follow bible principles. That is the same with the firearms issue. We want to follow bible principles rather than our natural inclination.
  6. Haha
    Nnaemeka reacted to Outta Here in What were Jesus’ instructions regarding shunning wrongdoers (disfellowshipping)?   
    *** Insight-1 pp. 787-788 Expelling ***
    During the time of his earthly ministry, Jesus gave instructions as to the procedure to follow if a serious sin was committed against a person and yet the sin was of such a nature that, if properly settled, it did not need to involve the Jewish congregation. (Mt 18:15-17) He encouraged earnest effort to help the wrongdoer, while also safeguarding that congregation against persistent sinners. The only congregation of God in existence then was the congregation of Israel. ‘Speaking to the congregation’ did not mean that the entire nation or even all the Jews in a given community sat in judgment on the offender. There were older men of the Jews that were charged with this responsibility. (Mt 5:22) Offenders who refused to listen even to these responsible ones were to be viewed “just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector,” association with whom was shunned by the Jews.—Compare Ac 10:28.
     
  7. Upvote
    Nnaemeka got a reaction from The Librarian in What is a Christian Man's MORAL responsibility to protect his own life, or that of his immediate or spiritual family?   
    You should realize that Jesus was aware that there were so many things his apostles had to learn and overcome such as fear of man and the customs they grew up with. Jesus did not set out correcting every fault they had instantly but when the occasion arises. Realize that in the Luke 22 you quoted when the apostles showed him two sword he answered them: "It is enough." He went on to emphasize that their confidence should not lie in weapons when he laid down a principle before them right at the moment when Peter cut off Malchus' ears. This was stated in Matthew 26:52 thus:
    Jesus admonished Peter for using one of those swords. Just picture this scenario with the one you pointed out in your original post. They are both similar. But Jesus reproved Peter for falling on a weapon to protect himself and his master. Jesus laid a principle that all his followers will do well to follow. Jesus then in the next verse showed why it is wrong to do as you imagined in your original post scenario - that is, bring weapons to the Kingdom Hall. He emphasized to his disciples that he had legions at his beck and call - invisible spirit weapons - but in this time of death, he did not and would not use it when he said in Matthew 26:53 thus:
    That idea above, allowing Jehovah's will to be done irrespective if your life is in danger, does not show Jesus to be a coward as you contend. Or do you think he also is one? I doubt it. Jesus was bold and courageous to exercise self control at the darkest moment in his life and he never flinched from his resolve. We do well to follow his steps closely as Peter urges in 1 Peter 2:21.
  8. Like
    Nnaemeka got a reaction from Simplicity in Piñatas   
    You missed two points from what you read in the reasoning book. 
    1. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 was quoted. It emphasizes the fact that what were written in the scriptures was to equip Christians to please Jehovah. 
    The examples of birthdays in the bible were bad examples and not worthy for Christians to emulate.
    Then comes the second reason you decided to miss out. 
    2. Secular history. The Jews and early Christians associated birthday with idolatry. Why did you not realize that, Shiwii? The Jews wouldn't celebrate birthdays and when they read pharah's account and Herod's beheading of John they see it as a scriptural confirmation of what they are already aware of. Bad examples. Romans 15:4a comes to mind here:
    As Christians we copy good examples.
  9. Thanks
    Nnaemeka reacted to TrueTomHarley in Child Sexual Abuse UK   
    I am not even willing to accede the moral high ground to these anti-pedophile zealots. Let them claim some progress before we do that. They have succeeded in shaming people, punishing many, and wallpapering the world with sex registry lists. Let them attain some progress in stopping child abuse before we rush to proclaim them heroes.
    Though not parallel in all respects, the following is parallel in more ways than not: Nobody claims victory over drugs because many dealers and users have been sent to jail. Instead, they realize that taking out a drug dealer clears the way for ten waiting to take his place. They realize that ever more potent drugs are being devised, and ever more ways to ensnare people. They don’t crow that they are stopping drug abuse; instead, they realize they’re getting their heads handed to them on a platter.
    So far, pedophilia is following the same pattern as drug abuse. Ever more sordid and vicious forms are being devised. Persons respected, in various walks of life, are continually being exposed, yet they simply are replaced by others. Those who must track child sexual abuse online in the course of their job describe it as Medusa – one look and it turns you to stone. Moreover, the fight against pedophilia is mostly confined to monied lands. Few care in non-monied lands, as you pointed out.
    It is ever like the zealots of this world to charge around loudly, point fingers everywhere, punish some, shame others, and then, on the basis of their good intentions alone, claim victory. Let them actually achieve victory before we hail them as modern saviors.
    Let them come to grips with the causes of pedophilia. In a world that relentlessly pushes sex into ever expanding frontiers, crossing same-sex lines, encouraging lifestyles of multiple, ever changing lovers, embracing sexual activity of kids at ages younger and younger, hailing new exciting sexual positions and methods, it is unlikely to find success declaring every form of sex fine and wonderful except ONE THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED! The best defense will be the continual Bible training at the Kingdom Hall to keep yourself clean of every sort of fleshly defilement, to be had from the one religion training its members to properly integrate sexuality into their personalities – as neither the focus or life nor something to be frowned upon in its proper context. Ones of that religion should be portrayed as the heroes in this drama (even if flawed), never the villains.
     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.