Jump to content
The World News Media

xero

Member
  • Posts

    521
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by xero

  1. Some things are straightforward, but other things are a matter of interpretation. The thing that gets me is when someone acts like they have it all figured out. Nope.
  2. I understand that. Also knowing God existed is also not the point. If Satan imagined Jehovah himself was the product of the realm in which he was able to view him, like me being in a room or in a world with defined boundaries and I see someone and imagine that they didn't create the realm that we both reside in, but in point of fact simply was the first on the scene, then you'd be getting the point the author is getting at.
  3. W/regard to Jehovah's foreknowledge I've always thought of it this way: There's only so much stuff in the universe and only so many ways these can be configured over time factoring in the operation of free will. Before Jehovah created even Jesus as the Word he examined all the possible scenarios and that no matter which path was taken it would all end up being "very good" at the end.
  4. I'm not sure that's true. There's a thomist who's essentially arguing exactly this - that God continuously sustains everything. The argument is that like you can't have an infinite regress in the physical realm w/universes (no matter how many) and you can't have an infinite regress at any given point in the here and now, so God's spirit is the sustaining point for all reality. You can think of it the same way you think about the universe - no infinite regress longitudinally , but in the here and now flipped it's also true vertically.
  5. The book isn't pushing the "religions evolved" idea. It's pushing the idea that false religion has from the beginning fostered the idea of evolution because it's originator also believed the same (or at least wanted these to believe it). The demons, BTW aren't the same thing as the sons of god, at least not according to 2nd temple thought. It was thought that the demons were disembodied dead nephilim. I suppose not being fully human might have made it different for them as opposed to normal humans. Maybe they had phantom-body pain (like a vet who has phantom limb pain) and that was why they kept trying to get inside people or anything physical like pigs.
  6. Actually the "knowing he is his creator" is actually not specifically stated in scripture - this is what the author suggests the possibility is... Yes @Anna the author is suggesting, as did the Sumerians, that all the gods evolved. This would include Jehovah. Not that the author believes this, but that the lie fostered was fostered by and believed by Satan (and that this could be the contribution to what any sane person would think was a foolish endeavor) was the heart of the rebellion.
  7. So I'm just about done with "The Long War Against God: The History & Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict" and a couple of interesting notes in the book were that the idea of evolution existed from the beginning in the Sumerian texts and every ancient religious text (except the Bible). The author suggests that perhaps Satan was himself an evolutionist and did not believe that Jehovah created the universe, himself or any of the other angelic beings. He was not dogmatic about this, but it's a thought I never considered. It would certainly make more sense that if you didn't believe that Jehovah created the universe and that you simply sprang into being or perhaps such was the case at least w/Jehovah, that you might actually believe you could take him.
  8. ad·u·la·to·ry /ˈaj(ə)ləˌtôrē/ adjective adjective: adulatory excessively praising or admiring. "an adulatory review" I'd imagine you could "give and adulatory review" OF a dead person. We do that all the time.
  9. Totally disagree. Actually even in the 1st century in a Christian congregation no matter where you were any local government would have likely executed the wife who murdered her children, so the fact that today she's not a corpse wouldn't change the principle that she should be dead. Slicing and dicing this like "she's still alive ..duuuhh! you can't get remarried" reminds me of Jesus who condemned the religious leaders of his day who'd make loopholes to avoid fulfilling the principles behind the law.
  10. You spend a lot of time worrying about other people's affairs. I think you'd be better off looking in the mirror.
  11. Why do you spend so much energy worrying about the affairs of other people?
  12. People invariably relate experiences both good and bad. If you happen to have been in the same room as the event being reported, you have greater credibility with yourself if you agree with the judgment that it's "good" or "bad" because you were present. Of course this doesn't mean that your judgment is correct. A third person or even a fourth of fifth person might disagree. Eyewitness testimony isn't very good. This is why the police interview everyone they can when investigating a crime. No one expects the testimony to be consistent or correct. It's more like plotting points on a graph. The more points plotted, the more likely you have an accurate picture of a given graphed function. On the other hand it's important that the eyewitnesses not have time to rehearse their testimony or time to synchronize their testimony with those of others. Actual footage of an event from multiple angles is best and if you can also get audio that adds value. A person's attitude, their previous experiences and the things they believe to be true and righteous vary and this is true even among Jehovah's Witnesses. Now on the synchronization side of things we can see that people quite naturally seek out others who see things the way they do and are not particularly pleased if there isn't agreement. I see the grumbling lot not as liars, but as those who as a result of various factors has chosen to play a different movie of the annoying events in their lives and with a different music track to these events. I remember reading in a book somewhere that in a relationship the more things you have in common (as long as these are positive things) the better. I'm talking about a value system as well more importantly. But, they countered that having identical values isn't sufficient as it needs to be determined how these values rank in relation to each other. In a scarce or competing resource situation, how will these things be prioritized? Some people are more "feelings" oriented and if something doesn't feel right, even if it is right it isn't enough for them and this is why you have to dig deep and see what it is in your own mind (because we all have feelings) that feels right or doesn't feel right and really figure out why.
  13. You can see the same situation w/regard to people who lost money in an investment scheme. Now you and I wouldn't say that anything valuable was lost by becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but these have, but they adopt an invalid strategy for losing value - they spend more time arguing w/Jehovah's Witnesses. It's the sunk cost fallacy. We see this sort of thing in relationships all the time. How many people who after living perhaps 17 years as minor children to less than perfect (or even terrible) parents blame their lives decades later on their parents? I would argue that clearly these didn't feel they were getting a raw deal (in their view) until they felt they were and they felt that they wished they could have gone back in time and had a do-over. Who hasn't wished they could go back and change some decision? Point is that it's not baffling, but in many cases it isn't useful to continue to rail (at least in an emotional way - some adopt a more studious approach and write books contra-JW's) against decisions past-made. The other case is that these likely have social relationships which these would have likely wanted to retain, but for the decisions these have made, they can no longer maintain. Some feel honestly that they have made the right decision and that they could simply not play along w/it all no matter the cost, while others not as sure of themselves lash out in an attempt to provoke the kind of response which would justify the way they feel. I would say to these to perhaps consider the possibility that their own feelings are self-caused and that any happiness or sadness these are feeling are natural reactions to the way in which these events have been presented by the self to the self. Further, if what these are doing does not yield greater comfort or satisfaction it should be asked whether these are injuring themselves because they haven't accepted that they made decisions and that all that led to them becoming Jehovah's Witnesses and them leaving as well were their own decisions as well. Are these self-flagellating in an attempt to atone for the sins they imagined they made which led them to where they are today?
  14. Or you could do like this one sweet little sister who said jauntily "Fine, your blood is on your own head then"
  15. Speaking of dress and grooming, I always wanted to wear the bright primary colors that some of the brothers who were also brothers in Houston would wear at the DC. I've always had ghetto taste, but my wife stops me.
  16. Sometimes to that kindof thing I just say "Wow!" then shake my head while pursing my lips, turn around and keep walking. (I've found out from my wife that this can really piss people off)
  17. That's rich. I suppose it's like when you go to a door and someone wants to argue w/you about the trinity. I ask "Have you spoken w/Jehovah's Witnesses about this before?" HH says "Oh, yes, many times" Then I say "Well I doubt I could be any more convincing than them. Could I ask you a question though?" HH brightens "Sure!" The I ask "Since belief in the trinity changes nothing as far as my own behavior is concerned, why do you suppose Jehovah's Witnesses take such an unorthodox view?" HH pauses ...I'm imagining he's not had this question from a theological pervert before... I ask "Are they incorrigibly unsaved or evil?" HH "I wouldn't say that." I ask "So are they just stupid? Or is becoming a cult member just really damaging to your brain so it doesn't work any more in a reasonable way?" HH "I wouldn't say stupid, and maybe I'd say they're a cult, but most seem pretty normal." Me - "Kindof odd isn't it. Something to think about. Have a great day!"
  18. I think you're under the impression that I bothered reading everyone's remarks. I didn't. Nor do I need to to know everyone is just engaging in some sort of scriptural fencing exercise or shadow boxing. At this point in the online world every argument is almost useless if the goal is to convince someone other than ones self. Anyone who wants to find an answer to literally any question can google it and read and agree or read and disagree. In the end Jehovah will judge whatever it is you've judged and judge it rightly. Sure, people are going to go at it and maybe it keeps them sharp, but in no way is it anything in my view other than an exercise. In the online world you can never know if someone isn't just wasting your time. (like I am even now)
  19. I read all this and what I see is a lot of spiritual shoulder surfing. Everyone needs to listen to their bible trained conscience and leave it at that. Usually this means that the reason you don't do a number of things is more due to custom or because you don't want to stumble people. Let's face it. People are idiots and they'd rather gawk around the room to see what everyone else is doing and do what the "prominent" do than to do their own homework and mind their own business and reap what they themselves sow. (of course they can't avoid the latter) Quite frankly this is why any remark made in person or in print by anyone which doesn't come w/scriptural support (which I can see as flowing from) I'll gladly ignore. If it looks like I'm paying attention that's probably because there is scriptural support. If you can't see it don't imagine I'm following the advise for any other reason than to avoid stumbling someone or because this is likely not the hill I'm willing to die on.
  20. All this reminds me of an old circuit overseer we had who became our PO. He was from Guyana and told these great stories about witnessing down the Amazon in a canoe. Well they were well known JW's in their neighborhoor, and they had a dog named Buster. Now our old PO was quite friendly, but also blunt/polite about witnessing to his neighbors. So Christmas came and everyone in the neighborhood both knew of him and what he felt about Christmas, but they decided they would put up a big Christmas manger scene...and you can guess what happened. Right as they were admiring their handiwork Buster got out, ran down the street and grabbed the baby Jesus in his mouth and ran back to his dog house. All the neighbors present chasing him. I can imagine them all thinking "That Jehovah's Witness dog has stolen the baby Jesus!...I thought they weren't supposed to have anything to do w/Christmas!"
×
×
  • 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.