Can /pol/ redpill me on these fuckers?
First time they came to my door today and I just calmly talk to the guy before I got a phone call in which he decided to say his farewell.
Are they heretics?
>>55311290
Those guys hang out in the subway station and give me weird ass pamphlets. They seem like sweet people, its hard to think that they have bumfuck crazy ideas.
>>55311290
I see these fuckers in Zurich pretty much every week standing there with their pamphlets and signs. Unlike WWF or Amnesty International though they are at least not that obnoxious and leave you in peace as long as you don't engage them.
>>55311290
They absolutely are.
I've been talking to a higher up for over a year now.
Ask me anything..
>>55311334
>They seem like sweet people
The only reason they even speak to people is because they are evangelizing.
Like Scientologists, they are discouraged from associating with anyone outside of the church, due to the threat of corruption from outsiders.
>>55311290
That should tell you what you need to know.
>>55311290
Pretty simple people, a bit retarded if you ask me. I listend to this song the other day :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehKB9d8L1kA
he has a line like "jehova's witness spying your door" and I thought damn if they wanted they could definitely be a nefast power
>>55311290
They're non-trinitarian Christians. They're only heretics in that regard, afaik. But then, maybe from their perspective, other Christians are idolaters.
>>55311422
Connecting cumminities through weekly practice if discussion is heretical in 2015 ok.
So much for sharing extra lemons, oranges, loquats etc that grows in your own back yard.
>>55311290
Yes,
In the mid 1800's america there were a few con ment who were starting their own apocalytic religions based around the bible and numerology. Jehovas are just a product of this fissure during the civil war.
Dumbasses
>>55311604
Being outside the HRCC makes them heretics.
>>55311627
Don't forget pyramidology =^)
>>55311534
On the bright side of this, because they are such a closed off community, if you can prove your devotion to the church (er... God), they can hook you up in their social network.
But that means being cereal about it.
>>55311604
Also, they NEVER do public discussions with scolars/professors/etc, because they know they'll get BTFO on; Greek/Hebrew/History/Theology/Logic and so on and so on.
>>55311773
This is also true, they watch after their females like hawks. They also have a very good patriarchal family structure.
I was visited by two qt JW missionary women, one spic and one white, some time ago, this summer.
I answered the door half naked, with my protruding pot belly while wearing a gym short. They looked a little flustered and asked would I like to hear the message of JW.
I answered that I'm not religious and they realized I'm unconvertable, so they went their way.
I think a former friend, who is both a Mormon and a JW, betrayed me by referring me to JW.
I also got the knock on the door by the Mormon missionaries, male. I told them wrong neighbor, go to a duplex apartment next door.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSWu9zUalqk
JW is as bad as Mormon Church. Both are wacky cult, and I'm an ex-Mormon.
>Utahfag here
Are they of any use in kicking the pakis out? I ask because my mum is 'friends' with some (theyre prolly just trying to convert her)
>>55311290
Ok, I am going to give you the truth about JWs.
They are about as Christian as you can get in the modern world. Look into Sir Isaac Newtons studies on the Bible and you will notice that his understandings on the Bible were far different to protestants and Catholics.
You want an actual representation of what the early Christians were like? Look at the Jehovah witnesses.
Early Christians believed in disfellowshipping (it's even said by name in the Bible). They went door to door. They saw blood as sacred. They would literally rather die than solute a nation or celebrate holidays.
When you actually study and read the Bible, and not just take the Popes or ministers word for it, you get an entirely different picture on christian doctrines.
Look at how ancient man viewed the early Christians. They saw them as weirdos exactly how modern day views JWs. That's the true face of Christianity. JWs are weird because Christian IS A WEIRD religion. Remember this as it's important.
They are supposed to "not be of this world". That's why they dont celebrate birthdays or holidays or take full blood transfusions.
Ignore the people calling them heretics. it's meaningless in the debate. Instead, make up your own mind and ask yourself if what you read in the gospels is what more aligned to JWs teachings or modern day Christianity?
I used to be a JW that was once Catholic and protestant. I was a true believer for years. JWs are about the only Christians that actually follow the nonsense but at least they do it in good faith and are the most honest Christians. many of them are good people and there are many cultish elements but that is because Christianity IS a cult and that isn't edginess; it's the truth.
>>55311290
Its a cult, they have really fucked up beliefs that are non biblical and anti-Christian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc
>>55312116
About as effective as Amish people.
They're not very nationalist. I believe they limit their allegiance to God alone.
These cunts are everywhere in London. Throw a stick out your window and you'll probably hit one.
>>55311422
how come everyone I saw at Brussels-Midi was a sandnigger?
>>55312181
Also, look at the level of hate JWs receive. Jesus understood that these fucked up beliefs will cause people to hate you which is exactly why people hate JWs so much despite being the most Biblical.
"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.…
>>55312230
so they're basically jews then
>>55311834
>both a Mormon and a JW
clearly you are retarded and don't know shit about either of these "churches"
>>55312181
You could say the same thing about the Mormons, except they have a bizarre theology and socio-religious system.
>I'm an ex-Mormon.
>>55311290
Joseph Smith wanted his own Islam
Joseph Smith is the milquetoast Mohammad
>>55312230
I'm kinda the same way though, except I apply the rule of "keep to your own kind".
When it comes to the pledge, I interpret that as a mass sigil focusing ritual (witchcraft, mostly on one's self), and do not regard being "dutiful to one's country" as a virtue.
>>55312519
well, they have their whole other thing going and joseph smith and all this. people actually dont mind mormons as much as JWs especially after knowing them
>>55312519
Why did you quit the one true religion anon? The mormon church has the only true gospel.
>>55312415
Because of cultural Marxism.
>>55312477
I'm serious. A former friend is legitimately insane. A mentally fucked up man with a nasty temper, with the history of domestic violence, electronic harassment, simple assault, disorderly conduct, grand larceny, petit larceny and resisting arrest.
>>55311834
>both mormon and JW.
Dude are you autistic?
>>55311834
> ex-Mormon
> Utahfag
Thats where you messed up man...
Also
> who is both a Mormon and a JW
Yeah I'm afraid most of your post is made up.. ,':)
dang Ashton Kutcher is getting desperate for work
>>55312724
lol
>>55311834
Friend is:
>Mormon
>JW
Pick one
>>55311422
why didn't they blacklist you yet?
seriously, if you are fairly decent at defending orthodoxy and pointing out their insane, unScriptural heresies, they blacklist you and the next Saturday they go through your neighborhood, your door gets skipped.
this has happened to me at each place i've lived where they've come to visit. i always allow them in, just so i can try to open their eyes to the numerous mistranslations in the New World Mistranslation and inconsistencies and contradictions in their beliefs.
they are nice people, but brainwashed.
>>55312604
No religious debate here, t.b.h. Waste of time.
I quit because it originated as a heretical cult starting with Sidney Rigdon and the Spaulding Manuscripts as the template for Book of Mormon which is a work of fiction conjured up by fellow fraudster Joseph Smith, who was a sexually addict and messiah complex genius at mass communication to exploit human psychology.
They (Joseph Smith as the main mover) started the church based on Book of Mormon claim for profit and sexual exploitation.
Jehovah Witness and The Church of Scientology began as fringe cults to exploit the people for profit motive; power is an added benefit.
Dive in the rabbit hole and discover the truth.
My boss (an extremely hard working immigrant from Nepal) hates these fuckers with a passion.
A few years ago he had some JW come to his door with their pamphlets and stuff. This was his first experience with these people, so he invited them in for coffee and a chat. They talked about god, and religion and the bible for a long time. After the pleasantries, they had a conversation that went something like this:
"So, what do you do?"
>"We spread the word of Jehovah."
"Yeah, but for a living... what do you do?"
>"This is what we do."
"You mean to tell me that you don't offer anything to society?"
>"Well spreading the word of our lord is work."
"It's a hobby at best. You don't offer anything to society? Leave my house, I never want to see you in this neighborhood again."
From what I've heard he made them feel like such pieces of shit that they actually don't come around that area anymore.
>>55312665
See >>>>55312639
No. I'm an Assburger. Ex-friend told me he is both.
>>55311627
they are an outgrowth/offshoot of the SDA (Seventh Day Adventist - Ben Carson's cult) movement.
>>55312898
Just kidding anon, my grandparents embrace the mormon church and it saddens me how much they do. The contradictions alone in that churches history should at least show they aren't the true church or one true church. Good people usually and for some it really helps their lives, just sucks they push it out as some proven fact
>>55311290
At least they have a non-hippie Jeebus pic
>>55312932
epic, simply epic
>>55313008
pfffft.....
JW Jesus is not NEARLY as jacked and cut and Mormon Jesus...
...now THAT guy is a beast.
here's a question:
You're in a club with your gf and Mormon Jesus smacks your girlfriend's ass and asks her to be in a polygamous marriage with him.
what do you do?
>>55312932
plenty of JWs have jobs
Two of these guys walked into my fenced in yard, got my dog barking like there were intruders, and I walked to the door with my hatchet. Said they were there to spread a "Godly message." Told them I wasn't interested and they left.
THERE ARE NO TRESPASSING SIGNS ON A FUCKING FENCE. STAY OUT.
>>55311290
Christians with extra pestering ability and weirdness
>>55311290
Yes, and one of the worst heretics, they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ Our Lord.
>>55313393
>heretics
meaningless
>>55313337
>and I walked to the door with my hatchet. Said they were there to spread a "Godly message." Told them I wasn't interested and they left.
you mean, the face paint and ICP blaring on the stereo didn't clue them in?
>>55313608
They're heterodox non-trinitarians complete scum
>>55313887
It was that or my rifle. I have a hatchet around to chop smaller logs or bigger sticks for firewood.
I don't wear facepaint or do ICP. What makes you think I take drugs?
For some reason seeing "Jesus Christ" in big letters is hard to read as anything else but a profanity of disbelief.
Hard to take anything seriously with that nowadays. It's like having a religion with a prophet called "Fucking Hell"
>>55313942
christianity is non trinitarian
i dont see the word anywhere in the bible
>>55312205
it's all ogre.
Can I emigrate to Canada pls ? I'm white and Catholic
>>55314104
there are plenty of words that you won't find in the Bible, which convey ideas that are unarguably there.
and then again, there are JW things that you certainly don't see in the Bible - a ton of them. you don't, for example, find the word "organization" anywhere in the Bible.
Rule of thumb: If you know who wrote the book then it's a cult.
>>55314416
not but you do see the words "you are my witnesses" and being that God's name is Jehovah that it makes sense.
Jesus accepted Peters answer that he was God's son and that's enough. This three headed trinitarian thing is just read into the text. finding some hidden meaning that isn't there
>>55314462
but the JWs keep the list of names of translators of the New World (mis)Translation ANONYMOUS.
which is good for them, because if they didn't, they may have a moment like Charles Taze Russel, founder of the JWs, had in court. when asked if he understood Greek, he replied yes, he did. when then asked to simply identify some Greek LETTERS (not even full words), he couldn't and was forced to admit that he actually didn't know Greek at all.
>>55314685
yes, but you and i both know that if this is the criteria for identifying the true Church (err - "organization"?), then the Mormons have equal claim to validy, as it is also called "the Church of Jesus Christ." or, maybe the Campellites ("Church of Christ"). after all, those terms are used as well.
but, your argument works against you - since "Jehovah" is not the actual Name of God. it is a horrible butchering of God's Name.
so, no - it actually doesn't even say that at all.
>>55314819
but mormons created their own Bible and before you say it JWs use regular BIBLES as well. they all say the same thing. Validity is that they only believe the Bible and Jesus and God. Mormonism is a whole other can of worms and shouldnt be called christian at all.
for example, conscious suffering in hell is not biblical yet its taught as being a biblical doctrine.
Jehovah is the English transliteration of God's name.
>>55314980
>but mormons created their own Bible and before you say it JWs use regular BIBLES as well. they all say the same thing.
but no, no they don't.
if that were the case, there would have been no need for the JWs to produce their own mistranslation. i say that respectfully, because i sense you are someone with a respect for God's Word.
>for example, conscious suffering in hell is not biblical yet its taught as being a biblical doctrine.
there are actual, non-JW Christians who are anihiliationists that don't believe in a conscious, eternal Hell that are still, by and large, orthodox in their beliefs.
my question for JWs (among many) is this: WHO is our Savior? WHO redeemed us? Jesus or Jehovah?
in a related question: if Jesus is simply a created being, and not God Himself, then how in the world can a created being who is not God Himself take the penalty for OUR sin? it seems like an incredible, nasty, murderous, insanely evil act for God to KILL soeone who is simply a "created being," and perfectly INNOCENT, on our behalf. THAT'S not "holy," at all. it is a disgusting act of unjustified MURDER.
the ONLY way it makes sense at all is if Jesus really is God in the flesh, Who condescended to man to come down and take the penalty for our sin on Himself.
yet another question would be why does "God's organization" and "Faithful and discreet slave" have such an abysmal track record of false prophecy? this part can hardly be denied. if it were an actual person, it would be KILLED for its false prophecies, according to God's Law.
>>55314980
>Jehovah is the English transliteration of God's name.
it's not anything like the Tetragrammaton. the "ineffable Name" cannot possibly be transliterated that way. Hebrew doesn't even have a hard "j" sound, to the best of my knowledge.
what do JWs in Israel, for example, call themselves?
just curious.
and the Holy Spirit is called "The Spirit by which why cry Abba! - Daddy!"
do you call your father by his first name? sounds a wee bit disrespectful to me.
>>55314709
Didn't know that.
>>55311290
There's 2 JW churches/temples/whatever near me, one of them is pretty modern and always has been the other one is pic related. It just seems like one of those buildings that, if you went in you would be Fritzl'd for the rest of you life.
Not an hour ago one of these people, an old woman, knocked on the door. She handed me a pamphlet called How Does God View War?. Then she stuttered something about "Man's Wars" and God. I thanked her for the literature and wished her a nice day. It is easy not to be an edgelord. I'm a satanist.
>>55311290
>>55315751
Question (Attorney Staunton): “Do you know the Greek alphabet?”
Answer (Russell): “Oh yes.”
Question (Staunton): “Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?”
Answer (Russell): “Some of them; I might make a mistake on some of them.”
Question (Staunton): “Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447, I have got here?”
Answer (Russell): “Well, I don’t know that I would be able to.”
Question (Staunton): “You can’t tell what those letters are? Look at them and see if you know.”
Answer (Russell): “My way” [he was interrupted at this point and not allowed to explain].
Question (Staunton): “Are you familiar with the Greek language?”
Answer (Russell): “No.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses
http://www.patheos.com/Library/Jehovahs-Witnesses
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/history-of-the-jehovahs-witnesses
Completely bonkers, the lot of them.
>>55311290
Is that Seth Rollins?
>>55316001
Still better than jehova witnesses
At least your not a wolf in sheeps clothing.
>>55314980
let me ask you a question that doesn't have to do with particular verses, or even the Bible itself, directly:
did joining the Organization give you real, total FREEDOM, like the freedom that Faith in Jesus Christ gives us?
are your sins completely and totally forgiven - taken care of, forever? do you feel that sense of inexpressible joy that accompanies knowing that God has forever forgotten your sins, and that you are now a Child of God?
or are you on a never-ending hamster wheel of "publishing" and watching your every action, lest you slip up and incur the disfavor of the Organization, and perhaps the loss of your very family under their "disfellowshipping" rules? are you out every weekend, getting doors slammed in your face, your only consolation being the sense of camaraderie that comes from shared suffering as you and your JW friends get turned away at 99 out of 100 houses... perhaps even paying for the issues of Watchtower and Awake you hand out out of your own pocket? being told that, should you step out of line, you will be annihilated by Jehovah, and all of this dedication will be for naught?
why don't you just trust the REAL Jesus - God in the Flesh, come to redeem those who would be His Kids?
you don't need to live like that.
>>55312874
I get skipped by all but one, because he can't quit because God tells him prayer he can't.
>they are nice people, but brainwashed.
Very true
>>55311578
> other Christians are idolaters.
This.
>>55315434
You are assuming Jesus cannot consent, despite as the "Word" having been with God from the beginning, and as his only begotten son being the most qualified possible sacrifice. In this sense, you could say Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac was a prefiguration of the sacrifice Jehovah/YHWY/God would make for us.
Thing about it, if as the bible states, sin and death came to all of humanity through a perfect man (Adam), and required a ransom of equal worth, but there were no more perfect, untarnished men to even the score by ourselves....does this not make perfect sense that Jesus, first and foremost among God's creation and his 'eldest son' in a way, to volunteer for this role, coming as a last perfect man to die for our sins and redeem our relationship with God?
We are in a way his younger, naive and foolish brothers.
This would certainly earn him his rightful place as king 'beside God', as he himself states.
While this seems reasonable, there is, on the contrary, a fatal flaw to the notion that Jesus is God (among others).
If God made himself flesh to be sacrificed (to himself), he's redeeming us to himself through his own sacrifice.
But it's not really a sacrifice, is it? It cannot pay the ransom because it's not an actual death, or sacrifice, as it was claimed to be needed, if it was God who did it.
Because then either one of two things is true:
A) Gott ist tot, as Nietzsche would say. He actually died, which means there is no more God and this whole thing is nonsensical, because we redeemed ourselves to an entity that ceased to exist. Absurd.
B) God is not dead, but then he didn't really sacrifice Himself, did he? He has the authority and power to resurrect any man, or angel, and that includes Jesus to reward him for his altruism in our behalf. He cannot however revive himself (if He could even die, which the Bible says He can't), because if he still has that power in death, he wasn't really dead, and the 'sacrifice' isn't valid.
>>55319680
>You are assuming Jesus cannot consent
no, no i'm not. i would imagine in such a scenario He'd be able to consent, and indeed would consent. but this doesn't make a difference; it would STILL be a massive injustice and affront to God's holiness.
Read Deut 24:16 and Jer 31:30. what you are suggesting still runs completely contrary to God's Word.
the Atonement ONLY makes sense if the One Whom takes the penalty on our behalf is the One Who is sinned against, the One Who is "owed," in a sense. one person ("being," "archangel Michael," whatever) cannot die for the sins of another.
>In this sense, you could say Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac was a prefiguration of the sacrifice Jehovah/YHWY/God would make for us.
yes, of course the (near) sacrifice of Isaac was a type of prefiguring of the Sacrifice of Jesus - this is hardly in doubt. AND, it was the fact that Isaac was the son of Abraham that makes it so.
>does this not make perfect sense that Jesus, first and foremost among God's creation and his 'eldest son' in a way, to volunteer for this role, coming as a last perfect man to die for our sins and redeem our relationship with God?
no, an angel (and you guys DO teach that Jesus is an angel, contrary to what Heb 1 says - you say He is the archangel Michael) CANNOT die for the sins of men. there is no support for such an idea anywhere in Scripture.
here is Hebrews 1. if anyone is unfamiliar with the debate, the JWs claim that Jesus is the archangel Michael. read this for yourselves, and tell me if you - the person with no proverbial dog in this fight - sees a problem with that idea:
(comment too long; continued)....
>>55313973
>do ICP
kek ICP is some wigger rap group their logo is some faggot clown with a hatchet
>>55320439
Heb 1:
>>1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”[a]?
Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”[b]?
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”[c]
7 In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”[d]
8 But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”[e]
10 He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11
They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12
You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”[f]
13 To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet”[g]?
14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?
>>55311290
>Are they heretics?
>asking this question in 2015
People who have imaginary friends shouldn't be allowed outside without a minder.
>>55311578
>They're only heretics in that regard, afaik
They don't believe in hell either. You either go to heaven or you cease to exist.
>>55320501
so, it is flatly impossible for Jesus Christ to be an "angel," as the JWs claim, or a created being of any kind, for that matter.
the Sacrifie of Jesus Christ for the sins of fallen Man ONLY makes sense if Jesus is God Himself, since HE is the one we have sinned against - HE is the One to Whom the payment is due.
For God to say, "i'll kill an angel on their behalf. is that OK with you, angel? great, let's do this thing" is completely contrary to God's nature and His revealed Will.
JWs have a problem with the Trinity because, to them, it doesn't "make sense." they think it's three Gods, or polytheism. it most certainly is not.
if God created everything, then He also created all the laws that govern creation, including math. to say that God must be bound by math is to place the creation before the Creator - it is to make God a slave to His Own Creation. just as Jews tell us that "almah" is not the word for "virgin," but just a "young maiden," is to rob the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 of all meaning. "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son... well, where is the sign in THAT?? that happens every day - it is not a prophecy (nevermind the fact that the Jews own Septuagint translates it as "parthenos," which is unambiguously "virgin.")
why do i bring that up? well, similarly to how it only makes sense as a sign if it is a virgin, the Sh'ma, or Hebrew declaration of the faith, ONLY makes sense in a Trinitarian view: "Hear, O Israel, the LORD is God the LORD is One."
if what is meant is just "one" in the pedestrian, commonly understood sense, then this is no profound statement. in fact, it's stating something so patently obvious that it's actually ridiculous to say it. it would be like me introducing myself as "Hi, my name is (first name last name), i am a person with a name."
i'm rambling a bit, but the bottom line is the Sacrifice ONLY makes sense if God chose to do it HIMSELF.
>>55312181
This, one million times this.
>>55320741
They don't believe in heaven either. For them, the paradise is this Earth after The Apocalypse.
>>55321120
This, which is why I think like this >>55312181
guy said the only question is whether there is reason to believe God exists or not.
That is the main true point, because beyond that, there is no doubt that, if the conclusion is no then you should be Agnostic skeptic, and not fedora militant atheist, and if the answer is yes then you should study the actual scripture as per a sincere faith attempting genuine interpretation, like JW, and not some dogmatic bullshitters like most so called 'christian' denominations which are so keen on telling you the Bible's contents for you on Sundays, instead of examining through together.
"Feel good" churches and authority appeals to blind faith, in theism as with academia, are the height of degeneracy.
>>55321120
>This, one million times this
think about it for just a second. if that were the case, then for almost 2,000 Christianity CEASED TO EXIST ON THE EARTH. God's Church (errr... "organization?") was DEAD.
that's totally nonsensical, and it's the same nonsensical claim made by many groups that i'm sure you would call CULTS (think Mormons)
>>55316695
>>55316695
any JWs want to take a crack at this?
>>55321114
You start by claiming
>one person ("being," "archangel Michael," whatever) cannot die for the sins of another.
then go on to say that, nonetheless, God did it for us. This is patently a contradiction.
It goes against the whole concept of the covenant, and indeed God's Word, that you claim that one cannot atone for the sins of others. That was the whole point of the sacrifice.
That it is a "loophole" of sorts, designed by God specifically to redeem us in His eyes despite our inexcusable failure, deserving of death as penalty (as He himself said, and because he cannot go back on His word) is further proof of His infinite wisdom and mercy, or benevolence.
He didn't need to do this, but He chose to.
Just like Jesus can choose to.
Your claim that it is evil of God to allow an angel, with no coercion, to do this to display his love for us and God in this fashion, and reward him afterwards no less, has no direct or indirect basis on literature. You are literally arguing that you, in your imperfect human sense of morality, 'feel' like that would be evil. I disagree, and many would. Why is it evil?
The concept of one paying for the sins of others, as long as he is adequately recompensed is nothing new to the God whose concept of sin is INHERITABLE. None of 'us' specifically committed the original sin either, now did we?
The point is we are being redeemed through an act of extraordinary love (while brilliantly remaining just), because as the bible states, justice if not tempered by love is flawed.
This is why we weren't simply scratched as a project when we first 'fell'. And indeed we never would, because God's purpose never fails, and his original intention had to come to fruition, yes?
But just like we were persuaded into our sinful condition by a fallen angel (the Devil), so too we can be persuaded out of it by following God's appointed, Jesus (which as the archangel would be the firstborn amongst the angels).
How is this not sensical?
>>55321120
>They don't believe in heaven either.
yeah they do. heaven is a place for the Elect chosen to govern. but if you think about it it makes sense that God would renew a paradise earth like he originally planned
>>55323696
>It goes against the whole concept of the covenant, and indeed God's Word, that you claim that one cannot atone for the sins of others. That was the whole point of the sacrifice
i said that some innocent third party cannot atone for the sins of another, and that is absolutely true. please take a look at the verses i cited, as if you'd need to. it's a rather obvious fact.
GOD CAN take the penalty on Himself, since He is the One Who is is sinned against. in doing so, He remains both perfectly JUST (since He punishes ALL sin), AND perfectly MERCIFUL.
for God to have killed an innocent bystander - whether the innocent bystander agreed with it or not (after all, can you legally consent to murder???), would be a disgusting and evil act.
and it is MOST CERTAINLY not a Loving act - not an act of self-sacrifice on behalf of fallen man. in your story, Jehovah is no hero at all. He is not a savior. He is a murderer.
>>55321120
That's scriptural. No second kingdom until all are judged on a single day. In the meantime you are dust and devoid of the breath of life.
>>55311290
it's a magazine club cult
if you take the free magazine from them it means the person who gave it to you paid full retail price for it
>>55311290
They are basically happening fags. They care about translation very much
>>55323696
very easy question:
Who is our Savior?
>>55323696
>>55321114
And also, you didn't address the point of the logical impossibility of God's sacrifice at all, either, in your posts. The main point here is the indefensibility of the 'Trinity', which isn't even an original 1st century christian doctrine in the first place, and which Jesus never taught, and indeed isn't referred in the bible anywhere, only inferred (tenuously) by the church.
It is not that God couldn't be whatever he wanted, merely that we have no reason to believe He is. The question is that there is no solid scripture to cite to claim the trinitarian view - all of them are fairly easy to dispel.
If they are separate in mind, body, thought, and purpose, as the Bible states, then as physically, mentally and spiritually separate entities, the Trinity is not absurd because this is a 'difficult concept'. It is absurd because it is meaningless. If it talks like a duck, flies like a duck, has all the features of a duck...(e.g. IS a duck, as per the definition) then to want to claim it is a parrot is simply inaccurate. You could claim it technically qualifies as one (hardly) but if that is going to have zero bearing on it's actual attributes, why would you?
The Trinity is indefensible not because of what you argued (though I liked your reasoning about the Jewish interpretation of "almah", so it wasn't a wasted post, thank you) but simply because it is meaningless. An insistence that we can apply a counter-intuitive, self-contradicting term just because the idea that Jesus is a reflection of God (though biblical) isn't enough for some reason and you want to elevate Jesus at all costs. Why would he pray to the Father for strength, and ask His will be done, and not his own, for he was struggling and in need of support from fellow celestial brothers to be courageous and 'accept the cup' he was given, the night before his death? It certainly sounds like an approved son sent on a mission (as he was described in his baptism), which for JWs makes sense.
>>55311290
7th day cultists
>>55324499
That title is appropriately given to Jesus, who was sent and granted that role (and privilege) by God.
>>55324293
I did take a look at the verses friend, but the thing is what I stated is still true. Look:
>i said that some innocent third party cannot atone for the sins of another, and that is absolutely true
>GOD CAN take the penalty on Himself
This is fundamentally what you are saying. It's pretty clear from here that we both agree that someone innocent CAN take the penalty, as long as he is justly rewarded in a fashion that will make proceedings righteous and fair for him as well, ultimately.
Or are you saying God isn't innocent? Because that premise, which I'm sure is not what you mean to say, is a logical necessity of the two statements of yours I cited to be simultaneously true.
Clearly innocence isn't a factor. Just as God could take it upon himself, as you say, so can Jesus. There is no difference - where did you get the arbitrary (it seems) notion that the victim of an injustice can be further injusticed to attone for the perpetrator? That seems literally the least reasonable of options.
You insist that for His son to pull an older-brother-styled, and love motivated 'I'll share the punishment and help them understand' is evil, and God would never agree to this (not even rewarding him for his selfless act of love by appointing him as rightful ruler over us, as the bible says)....but then claim that God, whom we sinned against, should be further sinned against (killed no less), and that THAT would even the scales? How is THAT not evil, or for that matter have any semblance of justice?
Surely you must understand that your position is not so linear as you would claim it to be...
One of God's angels, rebelliously, put us in this position. Another is set to save us. The former, will be punished with everlasting destruction, and the latter rewarded with a position to the right of God in heaven.
I see nothing unreasonable of God, there.
>>55324509
i'm at work and trying to be brief, but let's go over the things you've mentioned:
>And also, you didn't address the point of the logical impossibility of God's sacrifice at all, either, in your posts.
please elaborate on why you think it's "impossible," while i take a guess at your meaning. if you mean that God cannot die, then we would have to define what is meant by "die" in this context. God certainly cannot cease to be, and i assume this is what you meant, since you guys believe that is the definition of death (contrary to what Scripture says, i might add)
>The main point here is the indefensibility of the 'Trinity',
it's perfectly defensible. what is NOT defensible is trying to shoehorn God - Who created the very laws of math - into a mathematical formula. again, i point to the Sh'ma itself ("Hear, O Israel, the LORD is God, the LORD is One"). it doesn't make any sense in your understanding - it is ridiculous because it's stating something so obvious as to not require repeating. if you understand it in a Trinitarian sense, THEN it not only makes sense, but it CORRECTS the oft-rpeated JW misunderstanding of what is meant by the Trinity!
>which isn't even an original 1st century christian doctrine in the first place
if this were true, there would never have been an Arian controversy in the first place, now would there have been?
> and indeed isn't referred in the bible anywhere
it is referred to (or rather, inescapably insinuated - again, WHO is our Savior?) ALL THROUGHOUT Scripture!
>only inferred (tenuously) by the church.
and i'm not exactly sure you even meant by this
>It is not that God couldn't be whatever he wanted
well, i'm sure He thanks you for granting that kindness
>merely that we have no reason to believe He is
except for the fact that it is so often stated in Scripture that you'd have to deliberately MISTRANSLATE the Bible in order to miss it - which is precisely what the WTBTS did with the NWT)
con't...
>>55325354
>If they are separate in mind, body, thought, and purpose, as the Bible states, then as physically, mentally and spiritually separate entities, the Trinity is not absurd because this is a 'difficult concept'.
this is confusing and i have no idea what is being said here. the sentence seems to have no referent. "they" who?
>It is absurd because it is meaningless.
well, that sentence was meaningless, yes. perhaps you can clarify what was meant by that.
>>55325197
>That title is appropriately given to Jesus, who was sent and granted that role (and privilege) by God
now, please read Isaiah 43:11, NWT.
i will ask again:
WHO is our Savior??
(are you starting to understand what i meant by the Trinity being inescapably inferred on every page???)
I was waiting for the bus near a JW temple once and this old chinese lady tried to stuff some of their pamphlets in my hand. I said, "No thanks, I'm a Roman Catholic." She looked at me like I said I had killed a kitten kek.
>>55311290
They are cultish. They will separate you from your family and guilt trip you mercilessly.
>>55314980
> but mormons created their own Bible
Last time I checked Mormons used the KJB. The Book of Mormon is not and never has been meant to replace the bible.
> and shouldnt be called christian at all
You don't get to decide that though.
>>55325354
I do not wish to take you from your work, and in fact have to go soon, so I'm afraid I cannot reply anymore (it is approaching dinner time here). Clearly you are genuinely attempting to interpret the bible correctly, and I'm sure if indeed your heart is in the right place that God will grant the holy spirit needed to grow closer and closer to Him. I'll leave you a last answer to your latest post.
The meaning of the word Death is indeed, well, Death, as per the definition of the word, and indeed the scriptural definition, contrary to what you say:
Ecclesiastes 9:5,6
(5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.)
Did a thoughtless, powerless God revive himself? If not, then he wasn't dead. You should be telling me how you think there is any alternative, please.
That being said, the rest is devolving to a Trinity argument, which is simple and there's plenty of arguments to be researched online, but a long-winded topic, so obviously there's no time for us to discuss it now. Either way, you didn't actually give me any scripture (which I was expecting after I claimed there was no citation that couldn't be easily refuted) so sadly I have nothing to refute. But I assure you, if you look up any of them in depth, and examine the translation from Hebrew or Greek, it is pretty clear that they don't imply a Trinity at all.
And don't forget Jesus' prayer to God before his sacrifice. If it was God, why would he pray to himself for the strength to carry on his own will?
There is plenty of biblical basis (this is just one, as is the other I've mentioned before) that goes against the idea of Jesus being God. He himself claimed God was above him.
Thank you for this interesting debate and I wish you the best.
if you're a JW and believe the NWT is an acurate translation of Scripture, then read through this list - which uses the NWT - and you will see that the Trinity is INESCAPABLY Biblical.
http://www.searchingthescriptures.net/main_pages/answering_cults/jehovahs%20witnesses/deity_of_christ_and_the_new_world_translation.htm
it's so Scriptural, that even when they mistranslated the Bible, they couldn't get around the very obvious implication of the Trinity.
God does not fit in your shoebox. He is not subject to your mathematical equations. He CREATED math; He is not at al subject to it.
if Jesus is not Jehovah, then Jehovah killed an innocent angel for no reason, since an angel cannot atone of the sins of Man. Only God can forgive sins, only God can pay the penalty for sins, since HE is the One Who is sinned against.
>>55312181
I have to agree that their interpretations of the old and new Testament's are far more accurate than the catholics and protestants. Catholicism introduced so much foreign crap and twisted the wording around so much.
But those Catholic morons have it way better than the Jovies.
I'm not religious, just impartial
>>55312181
>JWs are about the only Christians that actually follow the nonsense but at least they do it in good faith and are the most honest Christians.
Worldwide Church of God were like that too. Very damaging cult.
>>55325595
Jesus was appointed to save us through God, but obviously His authority and acceptance and indeed design of this provision (the ransom) is the reason why we're saved. It is accurate to refer to him as Savior, as well as Pardoner, etc..
You think that the fact that God is referred to as a savior automatically makes them one and the same, yet fail to infer when Jesus himself claims he is beneath God, that this means nothing? Jesus is subservient to God.
http://www.amatteroftruth.com/who-is-our-saviour-god-or-jesus
Here's a good page that sums some of the points I would make, had I more time. I made this one more response because it saddened me that you avoided this argument
>this is confusing and i have no idea what is being said here. the sentence seems to have no referent. "they" who?
simply by asking this evasive question.
"They" Jesus and God, obviously. It is pretty clear from context that I am saying (and this is objectively and obviously true) that if something fulfills all the definition of 'separate entities' then they are, as a fact, 'separate entities'. So to want to say they are the same but describe them as completely different (as the bible does) is merely a moot point. It is meaningless
well, that sentence was meaningless, yes. perhaps you can clarify what was meant by that.
Much like this sentence of yours. Either respond to the point made, or if you didn't understand say so, don't resort to petty mockery. I thought you were genuinely trying to reason with me here. Don't make this wholesome debate into a disrespectful 'fight/argument' right before it ends friend..
If you want to debate these perspectives more, why don't you just approach a JW on the street? I am really stretching myself in time here now. We have stands with literature to allow people to approach us on their own time as well as reaching out to them now (I'm sure you've seen them) so if you want to continue this, take it up with one of us.
Anyway, God bless.
>>55326613
>It is accurate to refer to him as Savior, as well as Pardoner, etc..
IS 43:11, in your own NWT, says there is NO OTHER SAVIOR than Jehovah.
how do you guys not see an issue here? and that's far from the only verse with a similar construction, demonstrating quite plainly that they are One and the same
>>55326613
and God Bless you too, my friend. this has been a fun discussion. i am sure we both Pray that the understanding of the other is increased.
These kept coming to my door but I always tied them up in discussions lasting like a half hour so they gave up coming. Or maybe it was some other religious group, idk.
>>55326123
If you're Christian and believe NWT is not an accurate translation, I suggest you can either study some hebrew and greek (as I did) and examine the scriptural interpretation points of contention, or read this as well:
https://books.google.pt/books?id=EgnIp2Bzdi8C&dq=Jason+BeDuhn+(2003).+Truth+in+Translation:+Accuracy+and+Bias+in+English+Translations+of+the+New+Testament&source=gbs_navlinks_s
You'll see that it isn't actually implicated anywhere if you translate properly.
God created Math, and logic, and that is why he makes sense...unlike the Trinity.
1 Cor. 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Don't pull the 'his ways are misterious' non-argument please..
Jehovah didn't kill an innocent angel for no reason.
There was a reason given, WE killed him, and you still haven't given any credence to your 'that would be evil' theory. I'll leave you to think about this.
Also:
>>55326353
This. It's evident to any unbiased observer, as it was to me when I began looking for a sincere group of believers with a logical interpretation to study with.
I'll bet you were 'born' into your faith, conversely..
But either way, we'll all know the truth soon enough right? Let's just hope we all do enough to be saved.
Good evening.
>>55326123
>you will see that the Trinity is INESCAPABLY Biblical.
None of that shows a "trinity" it shows a duality at best.
In order to get a trinity you have to show the "spirit" as a walkin' talkin' dudebro.
>>55312181
this desu
>>55326821
I just chuck'em into the basement with rest of 'em.
>>55326781
Yes, thank you.
I only wish other people would understand that when we preach it is with this goal of achieving understanding together...
But let's leave the discussion open for the others present.
Oh! And don't forget to discuss this one:
>>55326108
I get the impression you must've missed it.
Okay, now I've really signed off.
(And again...God bless friend!)
>>55312932
would he say the same to a nun or a buddhist monk?
>>55327054
>But either way, we'll all know the truth soon enough right?
That's debatable.
And don't get me wrong, I don't think you jovies came the closest to an accurate interpretation.
Just closer.
>>55311290
>>55311578
>Denying the divinity of Christ
>Christian
They deny the divinity of Christ and have their own Bible that replaces every instance of Jesus with Jehovah.
>>55311290
Shouldn't have opened the door. They'll see that as an invitation to keep coming back. Still can't get two nigger witnesses to stop coming by every other week.
>>55311290
Ex-JW here
What they preach is pretty sound, but I advise not to join them. They are very cult like at the end of the day. I honestly still can't wrap my head around what they are aiming for tbhfam
>>55311534
>they are discouraged from associating with anyone outside of the church, due to the threat of corruption from outsiders.
There is truth to this although not followed 100%
>>55311578
^this too
I didn't even know what the holy trinity was until some catholic kid started trying to convert me. And the idea you guys have some weird thing about mary "the holy mother" creeps me out.
The last big difference is we don't believe jesus died on the cross, it was a straight stake and his arms weren't out. Also the cross is an idol and not to be worshiped.
A lot of truth but I don't give a fuck anymore. They don't support their followers going to college and would rather have us standing around handing out fliers or preaching. At least other denominations will offer scholarships or something.
>>55321120
>>55320741
Not true this >>55323901
Also like the fact we read the old testament a lot, and we actually read the bible unlike others.
>>55311290
They're worth giving a chance to listen to, just don't expect to agree with everything they say but they're alright people.
I have a good relation with them for couple years now. They come weekly and we discuss stuff, also things non religious. It's all in good spirit and we joke about some stuff.
I've attended the church meeting couple times, much more interesting than regular church as its more like a lecture than a sermon.
I've also visited their local printing/translating office. One of them that I got to know much better used to be the one that has my "district" until he had to move there. Pretty interesting stuff going on there, but pretty cultish.
They seem like alright folks, keep to themselves even if they're a doomsday cult in some ways.
>>55311578
When you say they're non-Trinitarians, you should say that they deny Jesus is God, and believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and have re-written the bible to say so.
