You didn't answer the question: how old does one have to be to be baptized a JW?

(June 10, 2015 at 3:41 am)robvalue Wrote: All you are demonstrating is that "most people" do not understand what homosexuality is. That is not an argument, and it is a problem in itself. And if you do understand the difference yourself, why do you persist in using the wrong terminology? You're talking to us lot, who do understand the difference.

Because you're splitting hairs. If most people are talking about being gay, they're assuming that the sex acts go along with it. I hate the cliche, "we love sinner but hate the sin" but its sort of like that. If a gay person walks in a kingdom hall, they should get treated like everyone else would. But if they wanted to get baptized but refused to accept that god condemns homosexuality they couldn't get baptized. 

(June 10, 2015 at 3:43 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: You didn't answer the question: how old does one have to be to be baptized a JW?

Thats a personal decision that one makes. 

(June 10, 2015 at 3:41 am)nicanica123 Wrote:

(June 10, 2015 at 3:38 am)Neimenovic Wrote: We don't discriminate, but we discriminate? Oh ok -_-

They're standards. Not discriminations. The same standards are held for heterosexuals. Its out in the wide open that JW's do not condone homosexuality but its also constantly reminded that homosexuals deserve dignity like everyone. One recent article even said that a true christian would never be homophobic

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The standard is the same: the standard of bigotry.
It is discrimination, because heterosexuals are not required to 'shun thoughts and resist urges' that are a natural part of their life.

(June 10, 2015 at 3:46 am)nicanica123 Wrote:

(June 10, 2015 at 3:43 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: You didn't answer the question: how old does one have to be to be baptized a JW?

Thats a personal decision that one makes. 

I didn't ask that; how old does one need to be to be eligible for baptism by the JWs?

OK well, I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly, I made my case. I don't care what "most people" mean by a word, especially when they are wrong. When I'm talking to you, I hope we could agree on what words mean.

What would you like for Christmas?

Edit: this post looks terribly out of context, I didn't realise the thread was so big, it's meant to be a question for a Jehovah's Witness.

(June 10, 2015 at 3:39 am)nicanica123 Wrote:

(June 10, 2015 at 3:26 am)Stimbo Wrote: So heterosexuals aren't required to be celibate but homosexuals are? Is that what you're saying?

No because the bible doesn't condemn sexual acts between 2 married people. If someone wanted to be a JW, engaging in homosexual acts would never be condoned

So someone in a same-sex couple would have to be celibate. That or remain single and celibate. How about an unmarried heterosexual person? Are they subject to the same level of celibacy?

I didn't get an answer on whether it's a sin for two straight men to have sex with each other. If so, we're just discriminating against homosexuals on the grounds that they are more likely to do something naughty than straight people, whether or not they actually do it. That's profiling yo.

And what about bisexuals?

Of course I'm not defending the ridiculous standard set by the bible, what I'm saying is it isn't even accurately applied.

(June 10, 2015 at 1:58 am)nicanica123 Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 9:18 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In His humanity, Jesus was inferior to God. The challenge in understanding these passages is to figure out what Jesus did and did not know as man versus as God. However, the Son is begotten of the Father - not the other way around. So, although the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same divine nature as one God, the Father does have a sort of pre-eminence. 

Regarding Nebuchadnezzer, yes, DANIEL refers to the him as the "king of kings" in the following:

Daniel 2:36-38

36 “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37 Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

However, you will notice that Daniel refers to GOD separately in the same verse. Ol' Nebby was powerful among human kings, but not God. In Revelation, it is Jesus, the Lamb of God, (cf. John 1) who is the final, ultimate King of kings.

Revelation 17:14
14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.”


Now, did I miss your answer to my question? If so, in which post did you answer the question about when God died?

In answer to your question... Most of those first and last scriptures in revelation are referring to Jesus christ. The only one that refers to god from my recollection is the one towards the end where it also uses the phrase alpha and omega. 

How come when Daniel refers to god separately to Nebby its ok but the dozens of times that Jesus himself refers to god as a separate being it does't make sense to you?

It makes sense...I just don't understand exactly what was going on in Jesus' brain. He often spoke of God in human terms...He had a human audience.

Quote:How could Jesus say that he doesn't even act on his own will but the fathers?

Because Jesus is God the Son. Do the Father and the Son ever disagree on anything?

Quote:How come he asked god to forgive the sinners?

How come Jesus also forgave the sins of the man let down through the roof causing quite a stir: "This man is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but God alone." After the healing, they marveled that God had given such authority to men.

Quote:How come he asked god to remove the cup if he could do so?

Because He was human and understood His death would be terrible.

Quote:So, is it reasonable to conclude that a few cherry picked scriptures should be taken more absolute than Jesus own words? I personally don't believe so. Another prophecy in Daniel is about the ancient of days giving the keys to the kingdom to the son of man. As far as I know, this is a heavenly prophecy. I would assume that Jehovah is the ancient of days and Jesus is the son of man. Paul also mentions god making Jesus the king of his kingdom. 

I'm not sure why this is a problem. Jesus does hold the keys of the kingdom (you may recall he gave a set to Peter the head of the Catholic Church which are still in the possession of Peter's successors).

Quote:Also, if you believe that John 1:1 is more accurately translated "was god" then why didn't the translator for the KJV also translate that Judas was "a devil" in John 6:70 when the same indefinite article is used? Shouldn't that verse have been translate, one of you is the devil? And then we could reasonably conclude that Judas is actually Satan? I am sorry, but for me that is lacking. 

Catholics do not used the KJV. For obvious reasons.

Quote:Also, if you juxtapose John 1:1 to a to Psalm 82 where the Judges of Israel were called gods. Does this make them Jehovah as well?

And now a second question for you:

If there is no conscious awareness after death, how could the "spirits in prison" be preached to by Christ after his death (1 Pet 3:18-20) and how could the good news be "declared also to the dead" (1 Pet 4:6)?

Does the psalmist uses the term "gods" in the sense of an absolute, all-powerful, personal creator God? Or in some other capacity?

---

(June 10, 2015 at 2:33 am)robvalue Wrote: I meant where does the bible say homosexuality is wrong?

Please note that sexuality and sexual acts are not the same thing.

Corinthians talks about sexual acts. Two straight men could have sex with each other. If this is a "sin" then it shows that homosexuality is not the problem.

That's not the definition of "straight". Here are some verses which make it clear that homosexual acts are sinful:

Leviticus 20:13: 
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. 

 
Romans 1:26-28: 
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
 
1 Timothy 8-11: 
Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,  in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. 



It would be great if someone would tell rob that I am aware of the fact that he has ignored me, that would be great. It makes it difficult to respond to him when he's not actually going to see the posts.

---

(June 10, 2015 at 3:50 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 10, 2015 at 3:41 am)nicanica123 Wrote: They're standards. Not discriminations. The same standards are held for heterosexuals. Its out in the wide open that JW's do not condone homosexuality but its also constantly reminded that homosexuals deserve dignity like everyone. One recent article even said that a true christian would never be homophobic

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The standard is the same: the standard of bigotry.
It is discrimination,  because heterosexuals are not required to 'shun thoughts and resist urges' that are a natural part of their life.

Sure they are.

I'm a heterosexual, and I am married. If the girl next door goes out to lie in the sun in her bikini, I have "shun thoughts and resist urges".

Websites offer the latest nude photos of Kim Kardashian or whoever on a daily basis, I have to resist all kinds of temptation.

Lots of examples like this could be offered.

---

(June 10, 2015 at 4:04 am)robvalue Wrote: I didn't get an answer on whether it's a sin for two straight men to have sex with each other. If so, we're just discriminating against homosexuals on the grounds that they are more likely to do something naughty than straight people, whether or not they actually do it. That's profiling yo.

And what about bisexuals?

Of course I'm not defending the ridiculous standard set by the bible, what I'm saying is it isn't even accurately applied.

If two people of the same sex engage in sexual activity, that is a sin.

If two non-married people of the opposite sex engage in sexual activity, that is a sin.