|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 5, 2014 14:32:55 GMT -6
Oops I sure did misunderstand. Sorry.
Also, I know Catholics had a part in putting the Bible together. I don't have a problem with that and I am grateful to all the godly people that helped put it together. However that is not a gaurantee that Catholocism understands them correctly. The Jews themselves wrote the Bible but rejected Christ because they did not understand.
So said the Jew to Jesus. Please don't take offense. I am trying to take a point. Pride is what started the fall of man. Pride is what caused the rejection of Christ. Pride is what ends the world. I don't think there is room for pride between two people trying to follow Christ. As long as you are on a high horse I don't think you can ever honestly consider what I've said nor I what you say. It really seems to me you've already rejected what I've said out of nothing but pride.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Apr 5, 2014 15:10:20 GMT -6
You have a bee in your bonnet. I am not on any horse, much less a high horse. But you must admit that it is going to be a stretch for you to prove that your approximately 130 year old religion gets right what the rest of Christendom had gotten wrong for the prior 1800 years. The Jews did not write the Bible. They wrote the Old Testament.
I don't have a lot of interest in the subject of hell. I do have a lot of interest in the Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. This is a far more important subject than hell could ever be, since hell comes into the conversation only at the point one rejects Jesus as one's Lord and Saviour. Whatever hell means, it is not the fate of those who love and follow Christ. So I just can't get worked up about the distinctions between Gehenna/Hades/Sheol. I intend to avoid all three, our dear Lord willing.
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 5, 2014 17:11:41 GMT -6
Perhaps if you viewed eternal torture as an untrue and God dishonoring doctrine that turns people away from God you might get a little worked up.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Apr 5, 2014 17:43:57 GMT -6
Nope. The scriptures are very clear that a choice against God will end up in eternal separation from God which cannot be anything other than horrible. We are not given the specifics and those who paint pictures of pitchforks and sulpher and brimstone are working with the same set of data that you are. You both assume too much for your preferred positions. You simply don't have the data to draw the picture of our eternal destiny that you have (here not so much but at IGI. You have absolutely no basis for claiming that babies will be resurrected to life on earth and grow up. It is a pretty picture with zero support in scripture).
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 5, 2014 18:14:20 GMT -6
Eternal seperation from God, yes. Eternal torture, no. And what data am I missing? And if there is missing data then the last thing we should be doing is telling people they're going to be tortured for eternity. Even the thought of it is illogical. And the data is not missing, it's ignored. Here is some of it.
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. As well their love, as their hatred and their envy, is perished long ago; neither have they any more a portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun." (Ecc 9:5)
"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath[spirit]; and man hath no preeminence above the beasts: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goeth downward to the earth?"
"These things said he: and after that he said to them, Our friend Lazarus sleeps; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep." (John 11:11)
Was Lazarus really burning in hell or enjoying paradise in heaven or wandering somewhere in between? Or was he, as Jesus said, asleep?
So far all you've added is Adhominem and appeals to authority. If you don't want to discuss it or if you'd rather discuss the resurrection then okay. But if you're going to address the topic then you should address what I've actually said. I really think that if it is of God then it will stand. If not, then it won't.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Apr 5, 2014 21:15:10 GMT -6
Chill, JST. You have become offensive. You brought this stuff up out of nowhere. I never indicated the slightest interest in discussing any of this. Yet I am proud, have appealed to authority (where?) have insulted you (where? that is what ad hominem means, you know. Arguing against the person and the argument.) You have become very aggressive and for no reason. Maybe because that is what the atheists at IGI and elsewhere do to you? Do you really want to imitate them?
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 6, 2014 17:11:38 GMT -6
If I've been offensive then I apologize. Sometimes I just don't know how to approach things other than like a tank when it is something I am passionate about. This is not really my preferred method but sometimes I find myself doing it anyway. I will stop.
But yes you have appealed to authority, the Catholic Church, and made one ad hominem toward the Witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 6, 2014 17:52:18 GMT -6
And the atheists might having something to do with it. You been following me? Can you tell I was about to throw another fit. Tell me why I continually bash my head against the wall?
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Apr 6, 2014 18:32:43 GMT -6
But yes you have appealed to authority, the Catholic Church, and made one ad hominem toward the Witnesses. No, I have not. I have not referenced the Catholic Church at all unless you take the truism that Christianity has believed in hell from its beginning to mean that the Catholic Church has believed in hell since its beginning. That is not an appeal to authority. It is a fact. It is not possible to make an ad hominem remark about a group. An ad hom is a logical fallacy that attacks the individual making an argument, rather that attacking the argument. I have done just the opposite. I attacked your argument. There is no logical fallacy in saying that it is highly unlikely that a small group 1900 years removed from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles got something right that the rest of Christendom got wrong. Including Jesus. Go back and read what he says. Your argument simply isn't persuasive. It has been clear to me for days now that you are working yourself into another depressive phase. I have been reading IGI (and am aghast at how really unintelligent most of the discussions have become. But an awful lot of good posters have left.) With mostly atheists of the unpleasant variety left, you were bound to be mistreated but that is simply nothing new on atheist/theist boards. Atheists are not known for civility, tolerance or intelligence about religion. If you remember that is why we started this board-- we wanted to create a refuge from that sort of bashing. So why not hang out here more often? Why not try out the argument you want to make on IGI here? We can help you shape your arguments more persuasively (although a literalist interpretation of the Flood or Adam and Eve is always going to meet with derision. There is simply no help for that.)
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 6, 2014 19:41:02 GMT -6
You've rephrased it but now it appears to be an appeal to popularity. And I still think your "johnny come lately" comment was ad hominem. You have not directly addressed any of the points.
And while I'm a little saddened that I don't have complete freedom of speech to speak for God, I'm not going to be depressed as before. And believe it or not wilson does offer me encouragment. For example, this comment, "It is wise to recognize your limitations and use what room there is for improvement" was directed toward me for encouragement. I just still don't fully get what he means in light of the conversation and he is not likely to discuss it with me.
Wilson is an odd sort. He knows a lot but he's not very open to discussion and he's abrasive. I've never encountered this before in a Witness. Typically the more questions you ask the more happy they become. For some reason he see me as a danger. Theoretically I could become like his worst enemy because I could offer him a lot more opposition than most people, but that's never going to happen.
And I already had my say about Adam and Eve and the flood over there. There is just simply not enough infomation to do what atheists want to do, which is disprove it, even if it is literal.
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 6, 2014 21:38:47 GMT -6
This reflects my beliefs. "Those who have not known God and do evil are condemned to death. However, those who have known God and have seen his mighty works, but still continue in evil, will be chastised doubly, and will die forever." (Shepherd of Hermas, c. 150)
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Apr 12, 2014 13:07:22 GMT -6
I do want to say that just because I believe differently about some Biblical things than you, and I like to talk about them, I am not in anyway trying to condemn you. I've thought a lot lately about what this means, "I want mercy and not sacrifice". I have found that people are often tempted to just condemn others that do not agree with them, thereby sacrificing that person. Well that would be wrong for me to do. Mercy must triumph over judgement. Everyone must work with the measure they've been given and who is anyone to say whether it be a little or a lot?
I've known this for a long time but it's coming more into focus. So while I would stop you from murdering your child on religous grounds and I will call war unchristian any day of the week. I won't stop you from having your own beliefs about doctrine. However, I do enjoy talking about doctrine and I do enjoy when people agree with me and sometimes I even agree with others. And I see no harm in it as long as it's kept in proper perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Apr 12, 2014 21:38:14 GMT -6
I would say that is a darned good summary of the matter!
|
|