It wasn't Benjamin who wrote those things, but KSA.
Okay, I've noticed it and Benjamin let me know, too.
Porthos wrote:
I have found it to be quite the contrary. The witnesses seem to be the only ones comfortable with you questioning their beliefs, or asking to prove their beliefs, because they're the only ones who actually can back up what they say with the scriptures. Because of my very inquisitive nature, I would ask questions of priests, and they would become furious if I spoke of the bible, or when they couldn't harmonize their teachings and traditions with scripture.
Of course, there are differences between them. What I wrote in my previous post is only my personal experience. I didn't want to declare it ex cathedra as absolute truth, even though it seems to have come across so.
Porthos wrote:
I don't think ostentatious is the right word, but they are very public about their faith, yes.
Probably not, but their agility verges on agression. (Of course, there are exceptions.)
Porthos wrote:
I don't know what you mean by this. I've never heard them bash Jews, and I know several witnesses who are of Jewish ethnicity.
Sorry - my experience again. The reason for that might be the fact that JWs are relatively new in my country. So, the value system of "new" Witnesses is not that well-established yet.
Porthos wrote:
Well, that's the way it should be. Unlike most so called "Christian" religions today, the early Christian congregation established by Jesus and the apostles was not one tolerant of dissenting lifestyles and immorality.
What about Maria Magdalena?
Porthos wrote:
Tolerating such conduct among members would pollute and corrupt the congregation, so in order to keep it clean, they would have to abstain from wrong conduct.
But they should help them find their way to morality (through helping them find their way to God).
Porthos wrote:
Wouldn't it be rather hypocritical if people went around knocking on doors encouraging people to abstain from things condemned in the bible such as sexual immorality, while they themselves were openly practicing it?
I wasn't talking about practising (present continuous) sexual immoralityopenly. Besides, it raises the question of what you would or should consider "sexual immorality". Do you think your (our) occassional (?) meanderings on the hidden pseudo-pornographic thread (aka For Your Eyes Only) would fit snugly into this category?
On a serious note, homosexuality and pre-marital sex definitely fall into this category according to the Bible, but this is a completely outdated, albeit still widely accepted view.
Porthos wrote:
What's the alternative? Should they instead tolerate outright hyprocrisy and shameful conduct such as the Catholic church does, and simply ship one child-molesting priest to another church in a remote location, and try to cover up his actions, while doing nothing to reprimand him?
From (allegedly) slightly promiscuous girls to paedophile priests. Quite an advanced trend of thought.
Porthos wrote:
As far as "devoting their lives to the community", again, this is something required for true Christians. Jesus said "a slave cannot slave for two masters".
I might not have expressed myself clearly. I don't have anything against the idea of "devoting your life to the community", it's an important thing and as such can be rewarding. I just felt compelled to list it among the prerequisites as it is essential for anyone who wants to become a member of any congregation. Without devotion the whole thing isn't worth a tuppence.
Porthos wrote:
I have found that there are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who are content with the status quo, who believe what is convinient and easy, and would rather live a life and in a world based on lies, so long as it's the easy route. They believe what's pleasant, and ignore the reality behind the facade. The other group is the one interested in truth, even if that truth may be painful, or hard to bear, or in the case of religion, hard to follow.
Fair enough. But how does it come to the picture?
Porthos wrote:
I'm one of the latter.
Everyone likes to think so.
Porthos wrote:
The vast majority of the world belongs to the former group.
Again, the vast majority of people likes to think so.
Porthos wrote:
They value traditions and believe what they want to believe.
You are no exception to the rule, either.
Porthos wrote:
I on the other hand, am only interested in truth, whether it be politics or religion.
Just like everyone - from their own point of view. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Unlike most so called "Christian" religions today, the early Christian congregation established by Jesus and the apostles was not one tolerant of dissenting lifestyles and immorality. Tolerating such conduct among members would pollute and corrupt the congregation, so in order to keep it clean, they would have to abstain from wrong conduct.
What about Jesus eating with the publicans and sinners in Matthew 9:10-12. "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." _________________ L'homme est comme Dieu l'a fait et un peu pire/ L'homme est le seul animal qui détruit pour le plaisir
That's true. But then again, our minds don't seem to be very organized when we dream.
Quote:
...and you "get there"every night without much trouble
I think that's just because our brains go into a different state when we sleep.
Quote:
Dreams are only differentiated from reality in a titular sense. We choose to call our waking state reality and dreams only dreams, yet in an empirical sense they couldn't be more real when you experience them.
But that doesn't make dreams real. Dreams is just some shit that happens in your brain when you sleep. In your waking state things are real; if somebody cuts you you'll bleed. Also, you are conscious and able to make decisions which will have consequences. However, I don't deny that dreams can seem very real and the feeling you sometimes get in a dream, whatever it may be, can last for some time after you've jumped out of the sack.
Quote:
People often have dreams so intense that they have physical reactions, they wake up sweating, with heart palpatations or if you happen to be a male of about 14 yrs old or so, other occurances
Yes, some dreams have quite an effect on you!
Quote:
In fact, how do you know what you call your life isn't a dream?
I can't know that but I assume that my life isn't a dream. For one thing I don't see any monsters coming out of the walls.
Quote:
How do you know that when you die someone doesn't ask you "so what did you dream about this time?"
Again, I do not and cannot know that. But why should I have any reason to believe that that would happen? When I die my body will soon be gone forever and as such I won't able to do very much, like waking up, for instance. However, if that would happen I'd grab my blanket and say: who the hell are you, man?
KSa wrote:
Well, I remember my physics classes some 15 years ago and my attempt to understand infinity. I almost went crazy and decided not to think about it - just take it for granted. You know, no mathematician denies that infinity is something real, even if they are extreme atheists. So I decided that if I couldn't understand certain things from the real world it's useless trying to understand the concept of an afterlife, which consists of infinity+other things that even physic cannot describe.I don't really believe that our souls will raise from the dead embodied. At least not in the form of the body we are wrapped in in the "real" life.I'd rather believe that it will be like the Jesus' body after ressurection. His disciples were confused: it looked like a normal body but it was still different. He could for example go through the walls, walk on the water, it was not vulnerable any more. Sort of "spiritual body". Still, as I said it may turn out completely different. Our limited mind cannot understand many things even from the "real" life. So that's why I try not to bother about the"afterlife" too much.
I see. I also see why it would be meaningless to think about it too much. For instance, how could one get beyond something that is infinite?
Quote:
As for beer, I'm afraid we will not have it any more in the afterlife. So let's not waste our time! Cheers!!!!
Don't you ever think about religion? You must have decided somehow to become an atheist - provided you weren't raised as such.
No, almost never, unless my eyes have to see walkers-by wearing kippas, hidjabs or any garment in which they are clad in that unique fashion so caricatural of uptight catholics. Apart from that, learning about religions is certainly a good thing to do if you want to know more about history, civilisations etc.
That said, how can one not be aware of what spirituality is ? But you don't need religion to get there.
Liz wrote:
I'm obviously not Benjamin and I don't know how he knows, but I do have lots of acquiantances who happen to be Jehova's Witnesses. They have a tendency to to accept everything at face value and, as Benjamin put it quite rightly, they don't want you to ask questions - provided your questions back up their arguments. Most of them are really ostentatious and think that their religion is the only "true" religion and thus other religious ways of thinking are inherently flawed. I can't really stand their way of bashing Jews all the time.
Yep. The last one who rang my bell certainly does remember our brief encounter...
Porthos wrote:
The witnesses seem to be the only ones comfortable with you questioning their beliefs, or asking to prove their beliefs, because they're the only ones who actually can back up what they say with the scriptures.
Since when do the "scriptures" backup anything reasonable ?
Porthos wrote:
I don't think ostentatious is the right word, but they are very public about their faith, yes. And once again, this is found in the bible, where the apostles admonish Christians to be "illimunators of light in a world of darkness". This would no doubt require attracting a lot of attention from most people, because they stand out as being so different from the rest of the world.
This is pure exhibition & hysteria. If they've got the sensation to have been "given" the "light", why don't they just keep it alight for themselves until they are descended to their graves, when the "illumination" will surely be most needed ?
Okay, I've noticed it and Benjamin let me know, too.
Ya sorry, I didn't see Benjamin's post before I posted mine.
Quote:
Probably not, but their agility verges on agression. (Of course, there are exceptions.)
Again, going to the bible, Christians were instructed to be "zealous evangelizers". Christ preached to people from all walks of life, and in under almost any circumstance, time, or place, as did the apostles. If their goal is to "save lives", then yeah, they are going to be rather active. Keep in mind that they're doing it despite opposition, and in many cases, brutal persecution. They devote their own free time for the purpose of helping others.
Quote:
Sorry - my experience again. The reason for that might be the fact that JWs are relatively new in my country. So, the value system of "new" Witnesses is not that well-established yet.
In your experience, have they spoken abusively of present-day Jews, or are you talking about their condemnation of the Jewish religious leaders who rejected Jesus as the messiah, and had him put to death? They do speak of those men in such a light, but they have nothing against Jewish people in general. Jesus was a Jew himself, as were all of the apostles.
Quote:
What about Maria Magdalena?
What about her? Unlike the hypocritical, pompous Jewish religious leaders of the time, Jesus showed empathy for those looked down upon by society. He preached to a Samaritan woman, which was taboo for a Jew at the time. He dined with tax collectors and preached to a prostitute, but that does not mean that they were allowed entry into the future Christian congregation while still practicing such immorality. Paul says, "Yet that is what some of you were, but you have been made anew, washed clean........ You have cultivated the new personality".
Quote:
But they should help them find their way to morality (through helping them find their way to God).
And that is exactly what the witnesses do. They conduct bible studies with people, for years if need be, until the person feels he/she is capable of getting baptized and commiting to a life of high moral standards set forth in the bible. If they don't feel they're capable of that, they either discontinue the study, or continue studying until they're ready.
Quote:
I wasn't talking about practising (present continuous) sexual immorality openly. Besides, it raises the question of what you would or should consider "sexual immorality". Do you think your (our) occassional (?) meanderings on the hidden pseudo-pornographic thread (aka For Your Eyes Only) would fit snugly into this category?
On a serious note, homosexuality and pre-marital sex definitely fall into this category according to the Bible, but this is a completely outdated, albeit still widely accepted view.
Yes, some of it would be yeah. I don't claim to meet these high standards myself.
And the bible's view is not outdated. The world's morals may change, but God's morals do not, and just because mainstream society lowers their moral standards, does not mean that true Christians should lower theirs as well.
Quote:
It's all about having the 'correct answer' for you, isn't it? Personally, I cannot accept that any one organisation or religious tradition can have a monopoly on 'truth'.
Yes. I'm only interested in truth, and I refuse to accept lies as fact. You don't really care what the bible says. If the bible says not to do something, you will disregard it if it's inconvinient. You decided for yourself how you wish to worship God, without any consideration for how he might want to be worshipped. The problem I have with most denominations is that they claim their teachings or doctrines or traditions are founded and supported by the bible, except for a few such as the Unitarians. But nearly all mainstream churches claim that their religion is based on the bible, and that the bible is the source of their faith. When their teachings are obviously in conflict with the bible, then their faith is obviously counterfeit Christianity. That's the way I see it.
Quote:
This is pure exhibition & hysteria. If they've got the sensation to have been "given" the "light", why don't they just keep it alight for themselves until they are descended to their graves, when the "illumination" will surely be most needed ?
Greg, you're an atheist, who manifests open disrespect for organized religion, or who at least does not value the bible at all. So, a debate between you and I on a theological matter would be pointless. Honestly, there would be no end to the debate, and it would serve no purpose whatsoever. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Greg, you're an atheist, who manifests open disrespect for organized religion, or who at least does not value the bible at all. So, a debate between you and I on a theological matter would be pointless. Honestly, there would be no end to the debate, and it would serve no purpose whatsoever.
Oh no. I very much value the bible insofar it seems to galvanise much of human time & energy. It's also an open window on the times when it was (re)written and a unique source of inspiration for historians. To that extent, it's possibly as interesting as Greco-Roman mythology or the Indian महाभारत (Mahâbhârata).
Hermeneutics is one thing ; faith in texts claimed to be the words of an extraterrestrial entity & subsequent proselytism based on the status of such texts are yet different things. None of both deserve any more consideration (let alone "respect") than Comte's positivism or Nitzschean scriptures.
PS: I am sure you are being humorous, Porthos. However, I frown upon Catholic bashing and I hope you would refrain from such tactless remarks in future. Such comments do nothing to promote a eucumenical spirit of co-operation at all.
It was meant to be humorous, but I was making a valid point. Your argument is that you feel it is more beneficial to follow the example or advice given by the modern Roman Catholic clergy than to follow the words of a some 'fictional ancient book' like the bible. And I was merely showing how faulty such a course would be, consideriding how time and time again, the church and its leaders have proved to be corrupt, and have commited some of the greatest atrocities in human history.
Well, that's definetely a lie: the atrocities of the Cathloic church have not been "the greatest in human history" - look at the Communism and Nazizm.
From what I've read on this forum: you are completely different from the Jehovah Witnesses I know. But there is one thing you have definetely in common: a hatred towards Catholic church.
It stands to reason that an atheist's failure to understand the existence of a Creator does not in anyway disproves His existence.
First off, you may drop the capitals until proven otherwise.
La prétendue "incapacité" des athées ŕ saisir le concept de l'existence d'un démiurge quelconque (et a fortiori une créature anthropomorphe arborant une belle barbe blanche fleurie) ne pourrait-elle ętre entendue, au contraire, comme la conviction qu'une vision aussi simpliste est une injure faite ŕ l'esprit humain et, en particulier, au doute cartésien ?
La pire des erreurs consisterait ŕ s'atteler ŕ "démontrer" l'inexistence de l'ętre supręme insatiablement invoqué par les monothéismes divers et variés dont l'histoire nous a généreusement gratifiés. Ce serait se tromper de cible en faisant trop d'honneur ŕ ce tissu de sottises (ŕ ne surtout jamais prendre au pied de lettre) de facture exclusivement humaine... Non, ce qu'on peut réellement démontrer c'est l'idéologie sous-jacente ŕ chacun des monothéismes et accessoirement ŕ toutes les sectes & hérésies qui en seraient issues ou inspirées.
I'd continue to capitalise words like 'God' or 'the Maker' or 'the Creator' for this is a convention in the English language. You'd only drop the capital letter if you wish to make a statement.
(I know you are being facetious; so am I)
I believe I have mentioned it before, but my loyalty to religion stems more from direct experiences with unexplained phenomena which I'd gingerly ascribe it to be of supernatural origins for the moment. You might scoff these 'experiences' as the product of a supernatural mind that does not befit the educational status of its owner. I would perfectly understand your reaction: I was once like you.
I became sceptical of organised faiths in general and the Christian notion of monotheism in particular in my secondary school years. Those were my halcyon days of rebelling against the Establishment. I think my religious beliefs lapsed for a goodish while. Like Karl Marx who famously described religion as the opiate of the proletariat, I thought religion was true to the fools, false to the wise and useful to the rulers.
I am not going to describe in detail what I saw or vicariously witnessed. To write it in print would be to do injustice to what had transpired. Besides, it would sound incredulous in the light of day. Suffice to say, it is a longstanding military tradition in many parts of the world to not tempt fate by publicly chortling at the existence of gods or ghouls. Soldiers who did in the past ultimately paid the price.
Why do you wish to tempt fate by publicly disavowing the existence of God? Even Blaise Pascal reckoned that, however long the odds might be against God's existence, there is an even larger asymmetry for backing the wrong horse. If you believe in God and turn out to be right, there is a goodish chance that you stand to gain eternal bliss; if you are wrong, it would not make a difference whatsoever. On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and turn out to be wrong, you would not be looked too kindly by Him after you have passed on whereas if you are right, it'd make no difference. This is the famous Pascal's Wager and we can easily derive the conclusion from the reasoning of this most logical of mathematicians.
Of course, to believe in God is not something which you can do overnight. It is a vocation. God is omniscient and it is foolish to adopt misleading postures towards religion. I accept that at best, Pascal's Wager is an influential argument on why one should feign a public belief in God.
Pascal was a mathematician and he was probably a calculated risk-taker (as all mathematicians worth his weight in salt are wont to be). The entire premise of his argument was based on the belief that the God conforms to the Judaeo-Christian notion of what God actually is.
I have sometimes entertained thoughts of such fallacious reasoning. What if the god who ends up confronting me is Zeus or Lord Shiva? Assuming that Zeus or Lord Shiva is as risible and as jealous as the God of the Old Testament, would I not be in hot soup?
I admit that thinking about this has given me plenty of sleepless nights.
I am aware that I am not advancing a credible argument for the belief in God here. Ultimately, as Liz and others have echoed here, faith is a private matter. It is vulgar to wear God on one's sleeve - just as it is for a Jehovah's Witness to come knocking on my door to ask a really rhetoric question: 'Do you believe in God?' _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
You are prejudiced, my friend. You conveniently forget that the Catholic church in Nazi Germany was also actively suppressed by the authoritarian third Reich. It is thus not surprising that the Vatican adopted a policy -which is misguided, I say - of self-preservation by not publicly inveighing against the evils of National Socialism.
Besides, I am not so brainless as to treat every word from the pulpit as peals of wisdom. I have brains and I can think. I only subscribe to approved doctrines and their sources are papal declarations, both the Old and the New Testaments and Tradition.
Non Catholics misunderstand the Catholic church. Even Roman Catholics are wont to view papal authority with a jaundiced eye. This attitude betrays a lack of understanding of the true nature of papal infallibility and what it really means. Papal infallibility is only invoked when the teachings are issued under the authority of the Magisterium. Otherwise, whatever the Holy Father says is much akin to an obiter dictum of a Common Law judge - a useful observation but nothing more.
Read the Catechism, Porthos. You would realise that papal infallibility was only invoked once in the last century and the exercise of this privilege was made on the doctrine that Mary was a virgin for her entire life. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Well, that's definetely a lie: the atrocities of the Cathloic church have not been "the greatest in human history" - look at the Communism and Nazizm.
From what I've read on this forum: you are completely different from the Jehovah Witnesses I know. But there is one thing you have definetely in common: a hatred towards Catholic church.
The leaders of the Catholic Church do disgust me, yes. The Church's leaders have enough blood guilt on their hands to fill an ocean. So I wouldn't want to be affiliated with such an organization. But I don't hate Catholics at all, because that would mean hating just about every person in my family, and hating myself to some extent.
Quote:
You are prejudiced, my friend. You conveniently forget that the Catholic church in Nazi Germany was also actively suppressed by the authoritarian third Reich. It is thus not surprising that the Vatican adopted a policy -which is misguided, I say - of self-preservation by not publicly inveighing against the evils of National Socialism.
Not anymore prejudiced then you are toward JWs. I didn't conviniently forget anything. Some Church officials like some lowly German priests were probably coerced into quietly siding with Hitler's regime and policies, but many Church officials openly supported him, backed him, and encouraged their followers to back him. They could have taken a stand for what was right, like the JWs did. From the very beginning of Hitler's reign, they were the first ones warning the outside world of the atrocities being commited against Jews and other minorites. When the Church turned a blind eye, and in many cases supported the atrocities, the Witnesses were the ones publishing the warnings to the world. They refused to hail Hitler, or support his regime, on pain of death, and so they were all eventually locked up in horrific concentration camps along with the Jews and Gypsies, and homosexuals and other minorities. Many of them were killed for taking a stand. Why didn't the Catholic leaders take a stand? As far as I'm concerned, they were just as guilty as the Nazis.
As a matter of fact, I first came across the JWs when I was as usual, avidly studying American civil liberties and law. I discovered that Witness have been responsible for the preservation of so much of the freedoms we take for granted, because of their repeated trips to the supreme court of the U.S. I found this alone to be worthy of respect. You should see a documentary called "Knocking" that aired on PBS. It's a documentary exposing much of the myths surrounding witnesses, and it's largely about their contributions to American freedoms. Here's a 25 min clip from the movie:
Yep. The last one who rang my bell certainly does remember our brief encounter...
I'm afraid to ask what you've done to him / her...
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
This is pure exhibition & hysteria. If they've got the sensation to have been "given" the "light", why don't they just keep it alight for themselves until they are descended to their graves, when the "illumination" will surely be most needed ?
I agree.
Porthos wrote:
In your experience, have they spoken abusively of present-day Jews, or are you talking about their condemnation of the Jewish religious leaders who rejected Jesus as the messiah, and had him put to death? They do speak of those men in such a light, but they have nothing against Jewish people in general. Jesus was a Jew himself, as were all of the apostles.
No, they were castigating present-day Jews in general - the Jewish doctrines, their interpretation of the Bible, the reason why they have JHVH instead of Jahve / Jehovah. And the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, the Buddhists, the Muslims and so on.
Yes, Jesus was a Jew himself. So were the Apostles and practically everyone in the Bible.That's what I'm explaining all the time to those Roman Catholics who are furtively right-wing extremists.
Porthos wrote:
What about her? Unlike the hypocritical, pompous Jewish religious leaders of the time, Jesus showed empathy for those looked down upon by society. He preached to a Samaritan woman, which was taboo for a Jew at the time. He dined with tax collectors and preached to a prostitute, but that does not mean that they were allowed entry into the future Christian congregation while still practicing such immorality. Paul says, "Yet that is what some of you were, but you have been made anew, washed clean........ You have cultivated the new personality".
That's exactly what I was talking about, even though you seem to present it as some sort of a counter-argument. She does become the follower of Jesus, and in my book it means that she became at least a symbolic member of the congregation. You don't necessarily have to become a priest to belong to the congregation. You need not be impeccable provided you aren't going to preach. Even if you are going to preach, you can prove that sinners can become better with the help of the religion. That can be a pull factor for many, can't it?
Porthos wrote:
And the bible's view is not outdated.
In some parts it is. I wouldn't consider homosexuality to be immoral. Under normal circumstances sexuality is the sort of thing that you can't help.
KSa wrote:
From what I've read on this forum: you are completely different from the Jehovah Witnesses I know. But there is one thing you have definetely in common: a hatred towards Catholic church.
Whom you are talking about? _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Last edited by Liz on Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:42 am; edited 1 time in total
From what I've read on this forum: you are completely different from the Jehovah Witnesses I know. But there is one thing you have definetely in common: a hatred towards Catholic church.
Whom you are talking about?
I didn't write that. I quoted it from KSA's post.
Quote:
greg in noord-frankrijk schreef:
This is pure exhibition & hysteria. If they've got the sensation to have been "given" the "light", why don't they just keep it alight for themselves until they are descended to their graves, when the "illumination" will surely be most needed ?
I agree.
If you felt you had the power to change someone's life, or to expose misleading false doctrines (such as the popular myth told by most Churches that "God takes people", and that he is responsible for people dying), would you just keep quiet about it? If you had any decency, I would hope you would want to share the news with others. And because Witnesses follow the bible, they obey the command issued by Jesus to preach. That's why.
Quote:
No, they were castigating present-day Jews in general - the Jewish doctrines, their interpretation of the Bible, the reason why they have JHVH instead of Jahve / Jehovah. And the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, the Buddhists, the Muslims and so on.
Oh okay, so they were just speaking of their differing viewpoints on theology, or exposing some of the false doctrines. I thought you meant they were speaking abusively of Jewish people.
Quote:
Yes, Jesus was a Jew himself. So were the Apostles and practically everyone in the Bible.That's what I'm explaining all the time to those Roman Catholics who are furtively right-wing extremists.
Yeah, I haven't noticed much animosity from Roman Catholics here, so much as I have from certain Protestant groups, particularly the infamous southern ones, whose members made up the bulk of the KKK. I never understood how they could reckon a belief in Christ, and the worship of him, with a hatred of Jews, when their "savior" himself was a Jew!
Quote:
That's exactly what I was talking about, even though you seem to present it as some sort of a counter-argument. She does become the follower of Jesus, and in my book it means that she became at least a symbolic member of the congregation. You don't necessarily have to become a priest to belong to the congregation. You need not be impeccable provided you aren't going to preach. Even if you are going to preach, you can prove that sinners can become better with the help of the religion. That can be a pull factor for many, can't it?
First of all, JWs don't have "priests" or a clergy class. Every baptized member of the congregation is a minister. As for Mary Magdalene, it is logical to infer that she became a follower of Jesus, but before she could be baptized as a Christian, and a fully-fledged, active member of the congregation, she would have to have repented from her former lifestyle. They would not have admitted her while she was still a prostitute. Similarly, there are many people today who wish to become Witnesses, like your friend, but are not allowed to be baptized until they've given up their former way of life, if it were an immoral one. They're still allowed and encouraged to attend the congregation. They're allowed to participate in the congregation bible studies, and they're allowed to associate with the congregation. They're just not allowed to represent the congregation in the public preaching work, or be baptized, until they've proved themselves ready.
Quote:
Porthos schreef:
And the bible's view is not outdated.
In some parts it is. I wouldn't consider homosexuality to be immoral. Under normal circumstances sexuality is the sort of thing that you can't help.
No, that does not make the bible outdated. Society's morals or standards may change, but God's standards remain the same. But to a large extent, at the time the New Testament was written in the Greco-Roman world, homosexuality was just as, if not more widely accepted by mainstream society as it is today. So it was written at a time when homosexuality was widely, and openly practiced by society, and not really frowned upon, like it was all the way up until about 20 years ago. So it was written for a society that did not consider it immoral at the time. Would it still be outdated even for them? _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
No, I am no more prejudiced against them as I am against the Mormons, the Baptists, the Methodists and numerous other denominations. If they do not harass me, I am fine with them.
I am against evangelism of any sort, incidentally. I strongly believe that one's holiness is not contingent upon his faith. As Pope John Paul II observed, the Dalai Lama would also enter heaven even if he does not believe in Christ.
Porthos wrote:
I didn't conviniently forget anything. Some Church officials like some lowly German priests were probably coerced into quietly siding with Hitler's regime and policies, but many Church officials openly supported him, backed him, and encouraged their followers to back him. They could have taken a stand for what was right, like the JWs did. From the very beginning of Hitler's reign, they were the first ones warning the outside world of the atrocities being commited against Jews and other minorites. When the Church turned a blind eye, and in many cases supported the atrocities, the Witnesses were the ones publishing the warnings to the world. They refused to hail Hitler, or support his regime, on pain of death, and so they were all eventually locked up in horrific concentration camps along with the Jews and Gypsies, and homosexuals and other minorities. Many of them were killed for taking a stand. Why didn't the Catholic leaders take a stand? As far as I'm concerned, they were just as guilty as the Nazis.
What arrant nonsense! This is first class bullshit. I am not going to dignify it with a response.
Porthos wrote:
I guess they forgot about all of the other children she had with Joseph.
Porthos, Porthos, Porthos. In your quest to further your agenda, the sacrificial lamb of truth has had its throat cut at the altar of expediency. Since you come from a Roman Catholic background, you would know better than to peddle blasphemeous falsehoods about the virginity of Mary. Mary's only child was Jesus and she certainly did not have children with a man. We know because it has been corroborated by the Scriptures and Tradition.
I'd like to draw your attention to the Protoevangelium of James : Written less than sixty years after the end of Mary's earthly existence after which she was carried bodily to heaven, this piece of historical document attests to the lifelong virginity of Mary. You must remember that St Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary, basically volunteered her daughter for a life of service to the Lord at her birth. This necessarily means sexual abstinence throughout her entire life.
As for Jesus's 'brethren', you would also be aware that the English translators had made a bad job out of conveying its proper meaning. 'Brethren' in the Bible can refer to either Joseph's children, thus making them Jesus's step-siblings; it can also refer to Jesus's cousins. Both interpretations do not contradict the reality of Mary's perpetual virginity in anyway.
I'd like to remind you that even the man who was responsible for the largest schism in Christianity, Martin Luther, believed also in the perpetual virginity of Mary. So did other Protestant reformist leaders such as John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli.
If you ever pass by a Catholic bookshop, do pop in to read a book called 'True Devotion to Mary' by St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort (incidentally, the founder of my Alma Mater). You would realise that there is no better way to please God than true Marian devotion. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
What arrant nonsense! This is first class bullshit. I am not going to dignify it with a response.
Oh really? Prove it to be otherwise.
Quote:
I am against evangelism of any sort, incidentally.
So, never mind the fact that a Christian's main obligation is to evangelize. It's really of no importance, and according to you, it's actually a bad thing, even though the scriptures say to do so, and all of the apostles and first century Christians did, and Jesus himself did. But okay.. whatever you say.
Quote:
Porthos, Porthos, Porthos. In your quest to further your agenda, the sacrificial lamb of truth has had its throat cut at the altar of expediency. Since you come from a Roman Catholic background, you would know better than to peddle blasphemeous falsehoods about the virginity of Mary. Mary's only child was Jesus and she certainly did not have children with a man. We know because it has been corroborated by the Scriptures and Tradition.
Woah, hold your horses cowboy. Was Mary a virgin at the time of her immaculate conception? Yes. (Although it's interesting that you could believe in this miracle, but not in other miracles of God's power mentioned in the bible, hmm ). Did she remain a virgin her entire life, even after mothering several more children? No. Why would she need to? There's nothing holy or superior about remaining a virgin once one is yoked in holy matrimony. God created people with a sex drive for a reason. According to his instructions to the first human pair, they were to "fill the earth (with offspring) and subdue it". The purpose of her being a vrigin prior to the conception of Jesus, was to legitimize Jesus' position as being the son of God, and thus, not an earthly son of a human man like Joseph. But once Jesus was brought into the world, it made no difference whether or not Mary, a married woman, remained a virgin or not.
And you can't use the scriptures to support your argument, because you've already plainly stated that the bible is nonsense, and is not a realiable source of accurate information. If some stories or characters in the bible are made up by writers with alterior motives, then who is to say that other characters or stories were not invented too? If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then perhaps the woman we know as Mary didn't exist either. Therein lies the problem. If you don't beleive the bible is the word of God, and that some of it or much of it is fiction, then where do you draw the line? How do you know what, if any of it, is true, or historical fact? All we know about Mary and Jesus is largely recorded in the bibical books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In all of those books, they trace the ancestry of Jesus through the maternal line of Mary all the way back to Adam and Eve. But if you yourself have said that Adam and Eve were mythical figures, then you in essence, are admitting that the Gospel account is thus also not reliable. You hold a double standard, and apply rules to one apsect of the bible, but not to another. You refuse to believe in some miracles based on the premise that they're unscientific, and yet you will believe in other miracles, even though within the confines of science, these are just as unlikely. Your reasoning is perplexing.
Quote:
You would realise that there is no better way to please God than true Marian devotion.
Again, going to the bible, which you in the above thread have cited as a source. Do the scriptures venerate Mary, and did Jesus disciples worship her? No. The apostle Peter makes no mention of her at all in his inspired writings. The apostle Paul did not use her name in his inspired letters to the congregations but spoke of her only as "a woman".
What example did Jesus Christ himself set in referring to his mother?
Luke 11:27, 28 - "Now as he (Jesus) was speaking, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said, 'Happy the womb that bore you and the breasts you sucked!'. But he replied, 'Still happier those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" ...... This certainly would have been a perfect opportunity for Jesus to pay special honor to his mother, or instruct others to venerate her if that had been appropriate. But he did not do so.
I was always told, and especially my female relatives, to address prayers to Mary as intercessor, but the scriptures say that Jesus is the one and only mediator between God and man.
But was Mary the mother of God? Uh, again, no. The angel who informed her of the coming miraculous birth did not say that her son would be God. He said: You are to concieve and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High.... The child will be holy and will be called the Son of God.
Back to the question of Mary's virginity, after the birth of Jesus, her firstborn.
Matthew 13:53-56 --- "When Jesus had finished these parables he left the district; and, coming to his home town, he taught the people their synagougue in such a way that they were astonished and said: 'Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? This is the carpenter's son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? His sisters too, are they not all here with us?''
It's interesting when you consider the Greek word translated "brother" and "sister" in English. The Greek word used was adelphoi for brother and adelphai for sister. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says regarding the Greek words adelphoi used in Matthew, that "these have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek speaking world of the time, and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense."
Another caption from the scriptures concerning Jesus' brothers and sisters:
Mark 3:31-35 --- "His mother and brothers now arrived and, standing outside, sennt in a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting around him at the time the message was passed to him, 'Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside asking for you'. He replied, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?' And looking round at those sitting in a circle about him, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers. Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my brother and sister and mother.'" (Here a clear distinction is drawn between Jesus' natural brothers and mother and his spiritual brothers, his disciples. No one claims that the reference to Jesus' mother means anything different from what it says. Is it consistent then, to reason that his natural brothers were not that, but perhaps his cousins? When what is meant is not brothers but relatives, a different Greek word is used, - Syggenon)
You mentioned that his multiple siblings need not be Mary's children, but simply Joseph's children, and therefore, Jesus' step-siblings. Yet, consider this. Jesus was the eldest child of the household. Before his birth, Mary and Joseph had no children. Both Mary and Joseph never divorced, and so remained married to each other. So, if they were Joseph's children, they would also have to be Mary's. So, we're left with one of two possibilities. Either they were not Mary's children, or they were her children, but were immaculately concieved like Jesus, and would thus not have required intercourse to have been produced. Yet, this would mean that they too were sons of God, like Jesus. Yet the bible clearly states that Jesus is God's only begotten son. So, the scriptural evidence is clear. Mary was a virgin when she concieved Jesus, and went on to live a normal, married life and had other children by the traditional means.
You should research the origin of the worship and divination of Mary as taught by the Church. It only came into practice hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, and has its roots in pagan mother worship, such as the Greco-Roman worship of the cult of Diana. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
You would realise that there is no better way to please God than true Marian devotion.
One wonders why God would need to be pleased. Omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, infinite eternal powers of creation aren't enough? God is needy and codependent??? Say it isn't so!!
One wonders why God would need to be pleased. Omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, infinite eternal powers of creation aren't enough? God is needy and codependent??? Say it isn't so!!
It is like asking why one's parents need to be honoured and be pleased. Are you saying your mummy and daddy are needy and co-dependent if you, as a filial son, genuinely wishes to please them?
Porthos:
I am sorry for getting back to you so late. It is not for a want of effort, but rather from the realisation that both of us are firmly entrenched in our respective positions. You'd scalpe me if I were to even stick my head out of the trench and vice versa. This is the Battle of the Somme transplanted to an internet forum and I have no wish to needlessly shed blood over a theological debate. Besides, my knowledge of religion is superficial and I readily admit to having never read the Bible in its entirety before. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
One wonders why God would need to be pleased. Omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, infinite eternal powers of creation aren't enough? God is needy and codependent??? Say it isn't so!!
It is like asking why one's parents need to be honoured and be pleased. Are you saying your mummy and daddy are needy and co-dependent if you, as a filial son, genuinely wishes to please them?
Maybe, maybe not. One would have to address specific situations. But we're not talking about "mommy & daddy". Besides, my comment referred to a desire by God to be pleased and yours to a need by oneself to please God. They're not the same. An unconditional love, which is another quality attributed to God, is incompatible with the need to be pleased, that need being a condition.
One's desire to please is distinct from God's need to be so. To envision a "relationship" with God to begin with would arise from a belief in one's personal separation from such a reality. Personal exclusion from omnipresence is a theoretical impossibility. Supplications to what may be an aggrandized version of one's self surely arise from a fabricated need.
At any rate, you will be the only one to judge yourself pleased/displeased with your efforts, since you are the only one involved in the "relationship" to begin with. Whatever floats your boat.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I'm afraid to ask what you've done to him / her...
