Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 9, 2015 at 9:41 am)nicanica123 Wrote: No we don't believe in predetermination. The JW's have commented for many years that homosexuals could have been born they way they are. But that it isn't a proper rationalization to ok it. Its compared to someone having a propensity to alcoholism. Or really even a guy or girl lusting after someone of the opposite sex that isn't theirs. JW's don't believe that the world condition is the way god purposed
This is disgusting and wrong on so many levels that I'm having trouble trying to decide where to start.
Even if someone has the propensity for alcoholism, one does not become an alcoholic without drinking. The same cannot be said for homosexuality. Homosexuals can never have gay sex and remain homosexuals. Also, you could take it in the ass everyday for a year and not become homosexual. If you drink your entire paycheck for a year, assuming you can keep your job, you will undoubtedly be diagnosed as an alcoholic.
The problem with alcohol is immoderate consumption to the point that it causes harm to yourself or others. Immoderate consumption is perhaps considered sinful, but the activity itself is not. Gay sex on the other hand is considered sinful, even if engaged in just once.
Face it, you blindly accept an OT prohibition and will say anything in order to legitimize it and the consequent bigoted discrimination.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(June 9, 2015 at 9:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: Tell the peanut gallery why JW's refuse to bare arms?
Risk of sunburn?
FatAndFaithless Wrote:Did...being gay just get equated with being an alcoholic?
I would probably have seen it that way, or similar to it, when I was a JW. Either condition is seen as a sign of imperfect humanity, and a burden to deal with. To deal with it successfully (ie, to avoid getting drunk, to avoid gay sex) would gain god's approval and a chance at eternal life in paradise, where those who make it would be perfected by god. So the alcoholic and the homosexual alike would be cured of their imperfections.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
(June 7, 2015 at 1:55 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Well, I've got half dozen books on JW's on the shelf next to my small collection books on Mormonism, masonry, Eastern Orthodoxy, and atheism, etc. Despite the protestations of some here to the contrary, I do try to do a bit of homework before posting.
And, yes, JW's do have a special animus towards Catholicism...but that's nothing new. The darkness hates the light. "It burns us, precious."
JW's say that Jesus was really Michael the Archangel...thus, a created being. But unless I missed something really big in my reading and conversations with JW's, I never understood them to hold that they acknowledge more than one God.
Now, Mormons do EXACTLY what you have suggested...is it possible you have these two groups confused?
Well if Catholics are the biggest perpetrators of false christianity then I guess god would have the greatest animusn towards them. Can you at least respond to the fact that Jesus often refers to himself as an inferior to God? Or what about in Daniel where Nebuchadnezzar is referred to king of kings, and then in Revelation Jesus is called the king of kings. Does this make Nebuchadnezzar Jesus Christ? The same title is used?
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?
June 9, 2015 at 10:32 pm (This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 10:34 pm by Losty.
Edit Reason: Edited for hide tags
)
(June 8, 2015 at 5:55 am)Dystopia Wrote:
(June 7, 2015 at 9:47 pm)Losty Wrote: People who are well read in scriptures have a better shot at speaking for what your holy book says you should be. Often times a person or group of people's belief do not align with the scriptures they view as holy. Almost always these people don't even realize that they're not following their scriptures. I personally think it's because most people are trained as young children to only read the happy verses and the ones that actually make sense for the beliefs they like to have.
This would make sense if reading the whole book was a requirement for believers. Most people are too damn busy to even bother reading the bible, praying and constantly going to church. They have families, work, hobbies (other than praying) Holy books are just pieces of paper, you can look at them anyway you want. Most people do realize they don't follow everything and some even openly reject verses because of interpretations, etc. As a former "almost"-catholic I know there's places in the church for everyone, you just need to find the right people. To some degree, I think people's brains determines part of what religion means. That's why there's Christians who hate gays and Christians pro-gay marriage.
I disagree with reading the book making you better suited to talk about something - Reading the bible as a non-believer just makes you good from an academic standpoint if you study different denominations and didn't just read the main parts - But actually living in a religious group gives you some experience most folks don't have. That's why I don't like to talk about religions other than Catholicism (and occasionally other branches of Christianity).´
OP, is it true that JW's would let their children die due to a lack of blood transfusion? What do you think about not celebrating birthdays?
I think you may have missed what I was trying to say. I only meant that if I am well read in scriptures, I will know more about what the book says than you even if I'm not religious.
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay
0/10
Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
(June 9, 2015 at 10:58 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Did...being gay just get equated with being an alcoholic?
Is it better if I would say that a JW would equate it with having an inappropriate attraction towards someone of the opposite sex? JW's also believe that homosexuals should be treated with dignity and respect like all humans deserve. According to the bible, homosexuality is wrong. I don't see why there is anything wrong from a christian point of view for not approving of homosexuality.
(June 7, 2015 at 11:37 pm)nicanica123 Wrote: Well if Catholics are the biggest perpetrators of false christianity then I guess god would have the greatest animusn towards them. Can you at least respond to the fact that Jesus often refers to himself as an inferior to God? Or what about in Daniel where Nebuchadnezzar is referred to king of kings, and then in Revelation Jesus is called the king of kings. Does this make Nebuchadnezzar Jesus Christ? The same title is used?
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? How could Jesus say that he doesn't even act on his own will but the fathers? How come he asked god to forgive the sinners? How come he asked god to remove the cup if he could do so? 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.
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.
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?
(June 9, 2015 at 10:58 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Did...being gay just get equated with being an alcoholic?
Is it better if I would say that a JW would equate it with having an inappropriate attraction towards someone of the opposite sex? JW's also believe that homosexuals should be treated with dignity and respect like all humans deserve. According to the bible, homosexuality is wrong. I don't see why there is anything wrong from a christian point of view for not approving of homosexuality.
Uh... how about because other people's sexuality is none of your business?
