Zone1 YHWH(Jehovah)

[kjw47]

I’m not very religious but I recognize an erroneous assertion when I see one. It may very well be that there is but one true God. And it appears to be very clear that you BELIEVE what you wrote about that God.

But your belief does not constitute a “fact.” You fail to distinguish between “belief” and “fact.” The distinction matters.

God will show everyone soon. unfortunately 99% are being mislead and will not like learning that fact.

 

[kjw47]

This first part I find to be in accord or at the very least not in conflict w/ the Bible:

This second part seems to me as being not from and at odds w/ the Bible:

--in fact the Biblical passage you sited never mentioned anything about 99% on earth being mislead. (from here)

Can we agree at least that the 99% is not from the Bible?

Jesus compared these last days to Noahs day( 99.9% mislead) Luke 17:26-- and when one reads the bible a few x they find 99% mislead at almost every given moment of history--The only exception where that number may be smaller is when Israel stood strong, but they fell over and over.

 

[BackAgain]

God will show everyone soon. unfortunately 99% are being mislead and will not like learning that fact.

Ok.

 

[there4eyeM]

A firm belief is simply not the same as a fact.

What is the message of Jesus?

 

[ding]

Are you claiming that England and Spain were not capitalist countries?

I'm claiming that you have not made the linkage to capitalism subordinates religion.

"...It is especially easy for us to observe socialism's hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. This same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed in socialist doctrines, beginning with the end of the seventeenth century. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century doctrines are imbued with cold skeptical and ironic attitudes toward religion. If not consciously, then "objectively," they prepared humanity for the convergence of socialist ideology and militant atheism that took place at the end of the seventeenth century and during the course of the eighteenth. The heretical movements of the Middle Ages were religious in character, but those in which socialist tendencies were especially pronounced were the ones that were irrevocably opposed to the actual religion professed by the majority at the time. Calls to assassinate the Pope and to annihilate all monks and priests run like a red thread through the history of these movements. Their hatred for the basic symbols of Christianity--the cross and the church--is very striking. We encounter the burning of crosses and the profanation of churches from the first centuries of Christianity right up to the present day..."

 

[ding]

Not a clue what I'm supposed to take away from this list?

That these are the sources for socialism has always sought to subordinate religion.

"...It is especially easy for us to observe socialism's hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. This same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed in socialist doctrines, beginning with the end of the seventeenth century. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century doctrines are imbued with cold skeptical and ironic attitudes toward religion. If not consciously, then "objectively," they prepared humanity for the convergence of socialist ideology and militant atheism that took place at the end of the seventeenth century and during the course of the eighteenth. The heretical movements of the Middle Ages were religious in character, but those in which socialist tendencies were especially pronounced were the ones that were irrevocably opposed to the actual religion professed by the majority at the time. Calls to assassinate the Pope and to annihilate all monks and priests run like a red thread through the history of these movements. Their hatred for the basic symbols of Christianity--the cross and the church--is very striking. We encounter the burning of crosses and the profanation of churches from the first centuries of Christianity right up to the present day..."

 

[ding]

I've seen your arguments and I don't think you're one to judge.

You dismissed a book you never read.

"...It is especially easy for us to observe socialism's hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. This same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed in socialist doctrines, beginning with the end of the seventeenth century. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century doctrines are imbued with cold skeptical and ironic attitudes toward religion. If not consciously, then "objectively," they prepared humanity for the convergence of socialist ideology and militant atheism that took place at the end of the seventeenth century and during the course of the eighteenth. The heretical movements of the Middle Ages were religious in character, but those in which socialist tendencies were especially pronounced were the ones that were irrevocably opposed to the actual religion professed by the majority at the time. Calls to assassinate the Pope and to annihilate all monks and priests run like a red thread through the history of these movements. Their hatred for the basic symbols of Christianity--the cross and the church--is very striking. We encounter the burning of crosses and the profanation of churches from the first centuries of Christianity right up to the present day..."

 

[BackAgain]

What is the message of Jesus?

Why do you ask?

 

[ding]

What is the message of Jesus?

If I am going to boil it down to one thing... I believe his message was to die to self.

What do you believe his message was?

 

[expat_panama]

Jesus compared these last days to Noahs day( 99.9% mislead) Luke 17:26-- and when one reads the bible a few x they find 99% mislead at almost every given moment of history--The only exception where that number may be smaller is when Israel stood strong, but they fell over and over.

Again, how about we understand together that "99.9%" is nowhere in the Bible?

 

[kjw47]

Again, how about we understand together that "99.9%" is nowhere in the Bible?

8 humans out of the whole earth survived the flood in Noahs day. = 99.9% mislead.

 

[Ivan88]

8 humans out of the whole earth survived the flood in Noahs day. = 99.9% mislead.

That flood did not cover the whole planet Earth. It was designed to kill off the sons of Adam who were race mixing; and was localized in some basin.
The sons of Adam are the sons of god. Noah was perfect in His genealogy and was the only son of god to survive along with His 3 son and His wife. Noah was not a race mixer.

 

[expat_panama]

Again, how about we understand together that "99.9%" is nowhere in the Bible?

8 humans out of the whole earth survived the flood in Noahs day. = 99.9% mislead.

That is an interesting interpretation, and it is not in the Bible. You can believe that it is the truth, that it conforms to the Bible. At the same time it is important that we accept that it is not in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "99.9% mislead".

We will be able to study the Bible together only when you are willing to accept the Bible as it is and not how you want it to be. Please let me know when you are willing to say that "99.9% mislead" is not in the Bible.

 

[Meriweather]

Why should anyone believe or assume that the ancient collection of writings you call "The Bible" is the inerrant word of an almighty deity? Start there. Why should anyone believe this Christian claim?

Let's start with the teaching you believe errs. Name one teaching and point out the error.

Have you tried following any Biblical teaching? If so, what was the result?

 

[Meriweather]

You are making the assertion that the bible is the inerrant word of an almighty God. Why? On what grounds? Whatever teaching is in the Bible is irrelevant to the question I asked. How would a biblical "teaching" in the bible, prove that the bible is the inerrant word of an almighty deity?

What do you know about 'inerrancy'? I have made no such claim, and would not because people have different definitions of what this means. First, inerrancy did not begin to be discussed until the eighteenth century. Second, it is noted that 'inerrancy' is limited to what the human author knew at the time he wrote the account, and also to how language and dates were used at the time. For example, exact years are not given, but around the time someone was governor, give or take.

One must also go back to the original language. For example, the Hebrew word we translate as 'day' means not only a 24 hour time period, but also any time period with a beginning and an end which could cover huge amounts of time. In Hebrew "Son of" can mean any descendant of the person named. 'Earth' doesn't mean the entire planet, but the ground within sight.

You seem to be saying something in the Bible errs. Therefore, I ask you to name one teaching you believe errs and point out that error. Then we can look at the passage, the language, culture, history, knowledge of that time to decide if there was indeed an error.

 

[BS Filter]

I read the bible a few x. There is no other God beside YHWH(Jehovah) just false gods. Small g god to some was not calling them God. it meant has godlike qualities.

So according to JWs Jesus is a false god.

 

[ding]

You're essentiallly an atheist when it comes to Allah, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, Wahe Guru...etc, all of these other deities from other religions.

That's a ridiculous argument. Different people have different perceptions of God. I see more similarities between the major religions than differences.

 

[ding]

it's you who is asserting that the bible was written by human authors who were inspired, and guided, by supposedly the almighty God (i.e. the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent deity), who created this universe. What evidence do you have for that claim?

The God of Abraham is a revealed religion. The best evidence is Jesus Christ, the account of Creation, the laws of nature and the creation/evolution of space and time.

 

[ding]

If the Father is the True God, that doesn't make Jesus a false god. Are you interested in knowing why?

Not from someone who doesn't believe in it and wants to subordinate religion, no.

 

[ding]

None of that is evidence for the existence of the Christian deity or the Bible being the word of God. I already explained why on another thread.

Just because there is no evidence you will accept doesn't mean there is no evidence. It just means there's no evidence you will accept. Prove me wrong.