Jehova's Witnesses

[tonyho7476]

If you don't beleive in Jesus or God, that's your premise.  I'm not one to judge. 

 

But, for those who are Christians, denominations and the like is not your answer - and most of the time people think it is.  The direct quotes from Jesus/God (the same thing) is where the answers are, not the legalism of a church (denomination).

 

You know what...I don't know what to believe. I hope there is a God and there is an afterlife, but I find it hard to believe. I think after you die, its all over. Hopefully I am wrong and haven't led a life that would leave me on the outs.

 

And a lot of the bible is stories meant to teach a lesson. Anyone who tells me Noah built a big boat and outlasted a 40 day flooding is off their rocker.

[kapkomet]

You know what...I don't know what to believe.  I hope there is a God and there is an afterlife, but I find it hard to believe.  I think after you die, its all over.  Hopefully I am wrong and haven't led a life that would leave me on the outs.

 

And a lot of the bible is stories meant to teach a lesson.  Anyone who tells me Noah built a big boat and outlasted a 40 day flooding is off their rocker.

My basic stance is, God has shown grace. He gave us that through Jesus. Period. NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING else matters, if you believe that much. Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, whatever, NONE of that matters, and you can't let some idiot PERSON tell you anything else. We all get warped by these so-called religions.

[tonyho7476]

My basic stance is, God has shown grace.  He gave us that through Jesus.  Period.  NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING else matters, if you believe that much.  Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, whatever, NONE of that matters, and you can't let some idiot PERSON tell you anything else.  We all get warped by these so-called religions.

 

I think the whole structure of religion is my turn-off. When I hear about groups like the Scientologists or JW, I wonder how anyone can buy into that crap and want to be part of it.

[kapkomet]

Sorry... didn't mean to turn this into that type of thread, but at the same time, I feel it's important to SSI's dilemma.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 09:10 PM)

A book written by people, about a spiritual being, is where the answers lie?  Come on.  Next you're going to tell me that Noah existed.

 

Why am I in this thread?  :Talking to Self:  Get out Satan!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you think that the Bible was written by man then you are not a Christian. The Bible was written by God through the Holy Spirit. The men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13).

 

 

You can take everything in the Bible literally if you wish. Some will take the story of Noah as literal and others will take it as a story. That is entirely up to you. If you want to believe in a story of a talking snake as literal that is entirely up to you as well.

[kapkomet]

I think the whole structure of religion is my turn-off.  When I hear about groups like the Scientologists or JW, I wonder how anyone can buy into that crap and want to be part of it.

I'm with you 100% of the way there.

 

Religion messes up so many things. If you just can believe in God's grace, again, everything else is just gravy.

[kapkomet]

If you think that the Bible was written by man then you are not a Christian. The Bible was written by God through the Holy Spirit. The men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13).

You can take everything in the Bible literally if you wish. Some will take the story of Noah as literal and others will take it as a story. That is entirely up to you. If you want to believe in a story of a talking snake as literal that is entirely up to you as well.

SSI, I don't think that was Tony's point. The point was more "story" vs. "literal".

[tonyho7476]

If you think that the Bible was written by man then you are not a Christian. The Bible was written by God through the Holy Spirit. The men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13).

You can take everything in the Bible literally if you wish. Some will take the story of Noah as literal and others will take it as a story. That is entirely up to you. If you want to believe in a story of a talking snake as literal that is entirely up to you as well.

 

It was written by men...including the part you just quoted.

 

Hey, I hi-jacked your thread.

 

Bottom line, you need to get your wife out of this s*** and it sounds like that is going to be tough. It sure sounds like some brain-washing takes place. I feel you have to be weak to get involved in this thing, because you are looking for others to tell you what to do. She is weak and needs your strength.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 09:38 PM)

It was written by men...including the part you just quoted.

 

Hey, I hi-jacked your thread.

 

Bottom line, you need to get your wife out of this s*** and it sounds like that is going to be tough.  It sure sounds like some brain-washing takes place.  I feel you have to be weak to get involved in this thing, because you are looking for others to tell you what to do.  She is weak and needs your strength.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then you don't agree that it was written by God through the Holy Spirit? If this is not the case then there is no wonder you don't care what the Bible has to say. If you don't believe that then you can't believe in the Bible.

[kapkomet]

Then you don't agree that it was written by God through the Holy Spirit? If this is not the case then there is no wonder you don't care what the Bible has to say. If you don't believe that then you can't believe in the Bible.

Dude, he never said that. Don't be so defensive.

 

You've got to open your mind a little - I know you're tense... seek the truth through the Bible... and don't let other things influence you right now. That goes for both of you. You both need to be stronger then that and not so defensive.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 09:37 PM)

I'm with you 100% of the way there. 

 

Religion messes up so many things.  If you just can believe in God's grace, again, everything else is just gravy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tony can't read the Bible the way you can. He doesn't believe that God wrote it or influenced it. He believes that only mere men thought of it and wrote it down on paper. How do you learn or know God's grace if you can't believe in the Bible?

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 09:47 PM)

Dude, he never said that.  Don't be so defensive. 

 

You've got to open your mind a little - I know you're tense... seek the truth through the Bible... and don't let other things influence you right now.  That goes for both of you.  You both need to be stronger then that and not so defensive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kap, that is exactly what he is saying. If he isn't then I am missing his point. I would like clarification of what he is saying then. Because I am lost.

[kapkomet]

Tony can't read the Bible the way you can. He doesn't believe that God wrote it or influenced it. He believes that only mere men thought of it and wrote it down on paper. How do you learn or know God's grace if you can't believe in the Bible?

Different conversation for a different time...

 

The reality is man DID write the Bible. Let's just stick with that fact. Baby steps... you don't just slam the book in front of someone without trying to educate the background of it. That's why people don't care, because (as an example) you're trying to cram a belief down someone's throat.

 

Stick to your own house right now, cheif. Things will look a lot better if you do.

[tonyho7476]

Tony can't read the Bible the way you can. He doesn't believe that God wrote it or influenced it. He believes that only mere men thought of it and wrote it down on paper. How do you learn or know God's grace if you can't believe in the Bible?

 

I have faith for parts of the bible, but not all. A lot of the stories are just that, stories to teach a lesson etc.

 

Bottom line is this, without being there to see Jesus and the things that happened, I cannot be 100% sure of what I'm reading. Was there are last supper? I don't know. I didn't attend it, nor did the media. The proof is past down is writings from over 2000 years ago. No one can be sure of what they are reading. You have to have faith. i'm saying I don't have it.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 09:50 PM)

Different conversation for a different time...

 

The reality is man DID write the Bible.  Let's just stick with that fact.  Baby steps... you don't just slam the book in front of someone without trying to educate the background of it.  That's why people don't care, because (as an example) you're trying to cram a belief down someone's throat.

 

Stick to your own house right now, cheif.  Things will look a lot better if you do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is that truly what you beleive? Man wrote the Bible? Not the Holy Spirit? God through the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible through man. Correct me if I am wrong please.

 

See I am not trying to cram it down someone else's throat. However, if you believe that only man wrote the Bible then the Bible should be pretty much worthless to you. Who is another man to tell me how to live? If that is what Tony and someone else believes then that is fine. I am not trying to make them see it the way I do. That is entirely up to them. That is why Tony and others view it differently than I and I think you as well. They can not find God through reading the Bible if they don't believe that simple fact.

[Wong & Owens]

Examples please. I can give you many examples in the New World Translation if you like. I would like to see examples of how other organizations changed theirs just so it would suit their own beliefs. Not only that but the New World Translation was translated by someone that was not even taught in the ancient Biblical languages. It is hard to translate something that you don't even know.

 

Here are some examples:

 

New World Translation

 

I wasn't referring so much to the actual translation of the bible from the original hebrew and greek scripts, but rather the subjective "picking and choosing" of what books/letters/gospels et al get to be part of the bible, and which do not.

 

But even in the case of the actual literary translations, there are many instances where scholars disagree on what exactly is being said. Different religions choose which translation works best for them, and then that particular version is the "correct" one.

 

But back to my point, the romans bickered for years over which books were "god's word," and which ones weren't. People were murdered over their opinions on the topic, and the bible changed numerous times by addition and subtraction over hundreds of years. Even today, religions differ based on which parts of the bible they choose to believe or not.

[Iwritecode]

Is that truly what you beleive? Man wrote the Bible? Not the Holy Spirit? God through the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible through man. Correct me if I am wrong please.

 

I believe it's impossible to prove a belief right/wrong.

 

It's like trying to prove a certain musician is the best ever.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 09:52 PM)

I have faith for parts of the bible, but not all.  A lot of the stories are just that, stories to teach a lesson etc.

 

Bottom line is this, without being there to see Jesus and the things that happened, I cannot be 100% sure of what I'm reading.  Was there are last supper?  I don't know.  I didn't attend it, nor did the media.  The proof is past down is writings from over 2000 years ago.  No one can be sure of what they are reading.  You have to have faith.  i'm saying I don't have it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See Kap. It is exactly what Tony was saying.

 

Thank you for clearing that up Tony. I have no problem with what you believe in or don't believe in. That is your choice and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. I have been through 18 years of Catholic school and I used to think the same exact way you do. I am not saying I am Catholic anymore because I don't consider myself as part of any religious group or any such organization and I don't want to be. I want to learn from the Bible and get to know God myself the way Kap has mentioned. I don't want others to influence my interpretation of the Bible or the way I read it.

 

I do understand where you are coming from though.

[kapkomet]

I wasn't referring so much to the actual translation of the bible from the original hebrew and greek scripts, but rather the subjective "picking and choosing" of what books/letters/gospels et al get to be part of the bible, and which do not. 

 

But even in the case of the actual literary translations, there are many instances where scholars disagree on what exactly is being said.  Different religions choose which translation works best for them, and then that particular version is the "correct" one.

 

But back to my point, the romans bickered for years over which books were "god's word," and which ones weren't.  People were murdered over their opinions on the topic, and the bible changed numerous times by addition and subtraction over hundreds of years. Even today, religions differ based on which parts of the bible they choose to believe or not.

The canonization of the bible certainly has its issues. But - I think the gosphels are pretty much where your money should lie as at least your foundation. The letters that Paul wrote to the churches to clarify certain things... are just that... letters. The gosphels, while stories about Jesus, also have much DIRECT text from Jesus himself, and that is how we should live our lives. I also think that Hebrews, while the author is "unknown" (but most likely Paul), puts the facts together very well of the transition between the old testament and the new.

Edited December 6, 2005 by kapkomet

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 09:56 PM)

I wasn't referring so much to the actual translation of the bible from the original hebrew and greek scripts, but rather the subjective "picking and choosing" of what books/letters/gospels et al get to be part of the bible, and which do not. 

 

But even in the case of the actual literary translations, there are many instances where scholars disagree on what exactly is being said.  Different religions choose which translation works best for them, and then that particular version is the "correct" one.

 

But back to my point, the romans bickered for years over which books were "god's word," and which ones weren't.  People were murdered over their opinions on the topic, and the bible changed numerous times by addition and subtraction over hundreds of years. Even today, religions differ based on which parts of the bible they choose to believe or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are right about a lot of what you said, but there are many drastic changes that are made in the New World Translation to fit their particular beliefs. It was translated by someone that had no idea what he was doing.

 

You are right that a lot of groups will quote scripture just enough to teach what they want and leave a part of it out.

Edited December 6, 2005 by southsideirish

[Wong & Owens]

The canonization of the bible certainly has its issues.  But - I think the gosphels are pretty much where your money should lie as at least your foundation.  The letters that Paul wrote to the churches to clarify certain things... are just that... letters.  The gosphels, while stories about Jesus, also have much DIRECT text from Jesus himself, and that is how we should live our lives.  I also think that Hebrews, while the author is "unknown" (but most likely Paul), puts the facts together very well of the transition between the old testament and the new.

 

Christians in the past couldn't even agree on which gospels were canon, and which weren't. The Gnostic gospels, for example. If you were to believe that the gospels contain "DIRECT text from Jesus," then why is the gospel of Thomas not in the bible? Who decided that John(which is chock full of contradictions that raise many questions as to its true source) is in, but Thomas is out?

[Rex Kickass]

It's like trying to prove a certain musician is the best ever.

 

Are you doubting Rush? It's so complex! And I have the math to back it up.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Christians in the past couldn't even agree on which gospels were canon, and which weren't.  The Gnostic gospels, for example.  If you were to believe that the gospels contain "DIRECT text from Jesus,"  then why is the gospel of Thomas not in the bible?  Who decided that John(which is chock full of contradictions that raise many questions as to its true source) is in, but Thomas is out?

 

first of all, because Thomas has been proven to be Gnostic and completely contrary to the rest of the message of the bible. The only people arguing about including the gnostic books are gnostics. They desire to taint the message.

 

The cannonization is quite interesting and you'll see that it's not as jumbled or choatic as it seems. Some books were eliminated because of incompleteness and many others were just repetitive. There are at least three versions of the gospel of matthew and following your logic it would be good question to why they aren't included, but the answer is that they basically say the same thing. There are well over 20k early church documents that are either 2nd century quotes or reproductions. Almost the entire new testament can be rewritten via quotes in pre-council of nicea documents.(325 AD) (the earliest copy of the illiad, by the way, is dated at something like 400 B.C. and it was written in 900 B.C. do we question it's legitimacy?)

[Rex Kickass]

(the earliest copy of the illiad, by the way, is dated at something like 400 B.C. and it was written in 900 B.C. do we question it's legitimacy?)

 

How many people try to base law on the Iliad?

[DePloderer]

All I can tell you is that while my wife was in the US forces we had a close freind who when they both left the army married a Jehovah's Witness. Over the years her letters to us changed to the point where we are no longer able to write directly to her and all the letters to us are from them both but written by her husband. The tone of the letters got stranger and stranger until, I'm sad to say, we no longer read them.

It seams to be a very difficult religeon ( cult is too strong a word ) to understand. From what we can gather from other freinds she does seem to be very happy with the situation, but the outgoing freind we had no longer exists.