LDS and JW's

[dj_dave]

The early Christians lived in the Roman world, and the Roman army was an aggressive force, not just a defensive force. In those days most wars were wars of conquest. It was considered acceptable for a stronger nation to concur and subdue a weaker one. The military was not just about self-defense.

Another factor was that in those days the Christians were a small and persecuted minority; and the chief instrument of their persecution was in fact the army. Joining the Roman army was like joining their own persecutors. The Roman army was also culturally very pagan and idolatrous. All of these factors and more besides prevented the Christians from wanting to be part of the army.

The early Christians were not “pacifists” in the modern sense of the term. A lot of the comments about “non-violence” that one finds in the literature of the time had to do with the persecution of the Christians themselves. The early Christians were powerless against the might of Rome, and any attempt at “armed struggle” against their persecutors would have been fatal for the Christians. They had no choice but to adopt a policy of non-violence against their persecutors, which comes across today as “pacifistic”.

I can’t believe you got me to come back here. There is a lot I want to address in your comments. But, it is going to take time. I have my Sunday meeting and my ministry to do all day today. I will be back later to address EVERYTHING you have said…oh .and…*Well, I still can’t say that I know precisely what is the JW explanation for the existence of evil and suffering in the world, because you take people on a tour half way round the world before you tell them anything. It leaves one a little confused at the end…*you did not get the point .…and it is far different than Morman belief. COMPARE:

“Only Hope of Mankind”?
● Ezra Taft Benson, former U.S. secretary of agriculture, recently spoke to the International Freedoms Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He lectured about what he considers to be the failure of “Western civilization” to stem the tide of Communist ideology throughout the world. Speaking as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Benson declared: “Today we are in a worldwide battle for the bodies and souls of men.” This churchman apparently believes that the most important battle for “the bodies and souls of men” is between human political blocs.

“I fully believe that we can turn things around,” he said, “if enough men and women in the Free World will have the determination, the morality, and the faith to do so.” The Mormon leader climaxed his speech with the assertion: “Here in the West we hold in our hands the only hope of mankind; and it will be to our shame and disgrace before God and man if we allow that hope to wither and die.”

Will it? Does the West truly hold “the only hope of mankind”? The Bible shows that there is another available choice—one that a Christian should espouse. Since the whole world, with its governments of both East and West, is “lying in the power of the wicked one,”** it is the “kingdom of God” alone that true followers of Christ hope in and declare to others. They do not desperately try to shore up sick governmental systems already condemned to destruction by God.**—1 John 5:19; Luke 4:43; Matt. 24:14; Dan. 2:44.

Hey! What happened to Dianaiad?..I wonder if she got the point.

 

[zerinus]

I can’t believe you got me to come back here. There is a lot I want to address in your comments. But, it is going to take time. I have my Sunday meeting and my ministry to do all day today. I will be back later to address EVERYTHING you have said…oh .and…Well, I still can’t say that I know precisely what is the JW explanation for the existence of evil and suffering in the world, because you take people on a tour half way round the world before you tell them anything. It leaves one a little confused at the end…you did not get the point .…and it is far different than Morman belief. COMPARE:

“Only Hope of Mankind”?
● Ezra Taft Benson, former U.S. secretary of agriculture, recently spoke to the International Freedoms Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He lectured about what he considers to be the failure of “Western civilization” to stem the tide of Communist ideology throughout the world. Speaking as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Benson declared: “Today we are in a worldwide battle for the bodies and souls of men.” This churchman apparently believes that the most important battle for “the bodies and souls of men” is between human political blocs.

“I fully believe that we can turn things around,” he said, “if enough men and women in the Free World will have the determination, the morality, and the faith to do so.” The Mormon leader climaxed his speech with the assertion: “Here in the West we hold in our hands the only hope of mankind; and it will be to our shame and disgrace before God and man if we allow that hope to wither and die.”

Will it? Does the West truly hold “the only hope of mankind”? The Bible shows that there is another available choice—one that a Christian should espouse. Since the whole world, with its governments of both East and West, is “lying in the power of the wicked one,”** it is the “kingdom of God” alone that true followers of Christ hope in and declare to others. They do not desperately try to shore up sick governmental systems already condemned to destruction by God.**—1 John 5:19; Luke 4:43; Matt. 24:14; Dan. 2:44.

I haven’t a clue what you are driving at. I have no idea what relevance this has to what we have been talking about, or even to the post that you are supposedly replying to. The passage itself is just a set of brief quotes and snippets taken out of context from a speech by Ezra Taft Benson which doesn’t establish anything as far as I can tell.

Hey! What happened to Dianaiad?.. I wonder if she got the point.

Maybe she got bored with your irrelevancies and taking us on a tour half way round the world before saying anything.

 

[Dan_Parker]

The early Christians lived in the Roman world, and the Roman army was an aggressive force, not just a defensive force. In those days most wars were wars of conquest. It was considered acceptable for a stronger nation to concur and subdue a weaker one. The military was not just about self-defense.

Another factor was that in those days the Christians were a small and persecuted minority; and the chief instrument of their persecution was in fact the army. Joining the Roman army was like joining their own persecutors. The Roman army was also culturally very pagan and idolatrous. All of these factors and more besides prevented the Christians from wanting to be part of the army.

The early Christians were not “pacifists” in the modern sense of the term. A lot of the comments about “non-violence” that one finds in the literature of the time had to do with the persecution of the Christians themselves. The early Christians were powerless against the might of Rome, and any attempt at “armed struggle” against their persecutors would have been fatal for the Christians. They had no choice but to adopt a policy of non-violence against their persecutors, which comes across today as “pacifistic”.

I don’t agree with what you have written above and would like to see some sort of substantiation for those claims.

That being said, one cannot enlist in the armed forces but stipulate that they will only “defend” against direct attacks against their families. So while what you write might appeal to some, it is not possible to sign up to fight only in selected venues.

Now, think about this. While there have been wars that have been righteous and supported by God, being involved in warfare now would disqualify one from being “in” Christ today.

Note that King David wanted to build the temple but could not because he was a man of war:

NRS 1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood in my sight on the earth.

How much more so should one who claims to be Christian and therefore **be **the actual temple of God avoid the shedding of blood.

NRS 1 Corinthians 3:17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

Regards,
Dan

 

[zerinus]

I don’t agree with what you have written above and would like to see some sort of substantiation for those claims.

Thank you Dan for your reply and comments. Most of what I said in that post are well known historical facts. Which parts of that post did you disagree with that you would like me to provide evidence for?

That being said, one cannot enlist in the armed forces but stipulate that they will only “defend” against direct attacks against their families. So while what you write might appeal to some, it is not possible to sign up to fight only in selected venues.

Every country needs to have a standing army to defend itself against attack by a foreign force. That is just a fact proven by history. Much as we might all agrees that war is a bad thing, the fact remains that nations have come under attack by hostile forces throughout history, and therefore they need to have a means of defending themselves against such an eventuality. If you don’t have a standing army, creating one after the enemy has struck might not be an option. You join the army with the understanding that that is what it will be used for, not in order to act as the aggressor. Furthermore, in all civilized countries that I know of, if a soldier is asked by a superior to do something that is immoral (such as killing civilians or prisoners of war), he can refuse to obey. Also in many advanced countries nowadays doing military service is no longer compulsory. If you disagreed in principle with the purpose of the war, you could resign your post and refuse to serve. Now if you lived in a country that was not a democracy, and has a conscripted army, and that country chooses to act as the aggressor, then you have a problem at a more fundamental level. The question then is no longer about where war is good or bad, but how to free yourself from the yoke of such a government.

Now, think about this. While there have been wars that have been righteous and supported by God, being involved in warfare now would disqualify one from being “in” Christ today.

I can’t agree with that. There is such a thing as a “just war”. Fighting a war in self-defense, or when God commands it, is a just war.

Note that King David wanted to build the temple but could not because he was a man of war:

NRS 1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood in my sight on the earth.

How much more so should one who claims to be Christian and therefore **be **the actual temple of God avoid the shedding of blood.

NRS 1 Corinthians 3:17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

I don’t know exactly what the rationale was in commanding David not to build a temple; but the fact remains that many of the wars fought in the Old Testament were done at the commandment of the Lord, including David’s wars. Indeed, the reason why Saul fell out of favor with God (and David became king) is because Saul failed to obey the commandment of the God to completely exterminate a group of people whom God had commanded to exterminate.

 

[Dan_Parker]

zerinus:
Thank you Dan for your reply and comments. **Most (e.a. by Dan) **of what I said in that post are well known historical facts. Which parts of that post did you disagree with that you would like me to provide evidence for?

Dan:
What part of what you wrote are **not ** “well known” historical facts? You may think what you have written is mostly factual, however could it be that you have been taught by those who already agree with your position? I would like to see you quote sources for the statements that you make. Then we can all examine them and determine how to weight the evidence.

In addition, while what you write may contain “facts” they may not be pertinent to our discussion. For example, you claim the Roman army was Pagan (a fact!) and that this is the only reason Christians would not join the army (what I question). Can you substantiate this? Could it be that this was only one reason and that they did not join the army because they did not want to kill other human beings, including other Christians, for Caesar?

You claim that it is acceptable for Christians to fight in armies who are defending and not aggressors. Would you characterize the war in Vietnam as one where Americans were defending against attacks on their families? How do you view a Christian in one country killing another Christian, even one of their own denomination (ie Catholics killing Catholics, LDS killing LDS)?

zerinus:
Every country needs to have a standing army to defend itself against attack by a foreign force. That is just a fact proven by history. Much as we might all agrees that war is a bad thing, the fact remains that nations have come under attack by hostile forces throughout history, and therefore they need to have a means of defending themselves against such an eventuality. If you don’t have a standing army, creating one after the enemy has struck might not be an option. You join the army with the understanding that that is what it will be used for, not in order to act as the aggressor. Furthermore, in all civilized countries that I know of, if a soldier is asked by a superior to do something that is immoral (such as killing civilians or prisoners of war), he can refuse to obey. Also in many advanced countries nowadays doing military service is no longer compulsory. If you disagreed in principle with the purpose of the war, you could resign your post and refuse to serve. Now if you lived in a country that was not a democracy, and has a conscripted army, and that country chooses to act as the aggressor, then you have a problem at a more fundamental level. The question then is no longer about where war is good or bad, but how to free yourself from the yoke of such a government.

Dan:
I am not arguing for or against countries forming their own military forces. They are clearly entitled to do this. What I question is whether or not a Christian would participate.

zerinus:
I can’t agree with that. There is such a thing as a “just war”. Fighting a war in self-defense, or when God commands it, is a just war.

Dan:
God is the standard of justice and therefore what he commands is just. I think we agree on this point, don’t we? What I would like to see from you is some proof that Christians should participate in the military of their governments.

zerinus:
I don’t know exactly what the rationale was in commanding David not to build a temple; but the fact remains that many of the wars fought in the Old Testament were done at the commandment of the Lord, including David’s wars. Indeed, the reason why Saul fell out of favor with God (and David became king) is because Saul failed to obey the commandment of the God to completely exterminate a group of people whom God had commanded to exterminate.

Dan:
I provided you what God said was the reason. Let me repeat it.

NRS 1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood in my sight on the earth.

Since I don’t know you, would you mind answering whether or not you believe the bible is inspired and true? Do you believe the words in 1 Chronicles 22:8? The verse is quite clear in establishing the reason why David could not build the temple. The word “because” establishes this. What Saul failed to do is not pertinent to the question of why David could not build the temple or the fact that Christians **ARE **the temple.

Dan

 

[ricko]

Okay, now here is an easy explanation as to why I believe

So did these versions
Harwood, 1768, “and was himself a divine person”
Thompson, 1829, “the Logos was a god
Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, “and the Word was a god”
Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was”
Abner Kneeland, 1822, “The Word was a God”
Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) “[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word”
“In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god.” John 1:1 21st Century NT Literal
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”
Leicester Ambrose, 1879, “And the logos was a god”
J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"
George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"
James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"
Siegfried Schulz, 1975, “And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”
Madsen, 1994, “the Word was a divine Being”
Becker, 1979, “ein Gott war das Logos” [a God/god was the Logos/logos]
Stage, 1907, “Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens” [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].
Bhmer, 1910, “Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens” [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being]
Holzmann, 1926, “ein Gott war der Gedanke” [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, “selbst ein Gott war das Wort” [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
Smit, 1960, “verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen” [the word of the world was a divine being]
Schultz, 1987, “ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort” [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word].
John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, “The Word of Speech was a God”
Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, “the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god”
Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 “and the Logos was divine (a divine being)”
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should
rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. “a God”
Lant Carpenter, LL.D “a God”
Andrews Norton, D.D. “a god”
Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church “a God”
next question

One thing that J.W. do is take writings of any sort out of context. I’ve seen them use “short quotes” taken out of context from Catholic documents to prove that the Trinity does not exist.

In keeping with that tradition, the list above by scholars is another fine example. They know that most people will not take the trouble to look up the actual quotes to see if they are indeed in contex. For example let’s look at Robert Young from the above list:

Here are Young’s comments in full:
“John 1:1 And the Word was God, ] more lit. ‘and a God (i.e., a Divine Being) was the Word,’ that is, he was existing and recognized as such” (Young, Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible).

It is doubtful Dr. Young intended his words to support something akin to the NWT rendering, “The Word was a god.” Young was a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland at a time when some of the more liberal members of that church were questioning the adherence to the Westminster Confession as their defining rule of faith.

forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#Young

The above link gives more detail and looks at others that debunk the “A god” belief.

 

[dj_dave]

The purpose of God sending mankind on earth is to test them to see if they would be faithful and obedient to all His commands.

*** First and foremost the Bible says "(Psalm 104:23-24) 23 Man goes forth to his activity And to his service until evening. 24 How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions.***…(Psalm 104:29-30) . . .If you conceal your face, they get disturbed. If you take away their spirit, they expire, And back to their dust they go. 30 If you send forth your spirit, they are created; And you make the face of the ground new.*3Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.4His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.*KJV MOREOVER, JESUS SAID AT "JOHN 8:23 "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.–NOT FROM HEAVEN.

**WHY TEST THEM AFTER BILLIONS OF YEARS IN HEAVEN? Remember the answer that I gave to Dianadad when she asked "why are we here?**"Simply put, he LOVES to create. If something didn’t go wrong in Eden. He would still be creating elsewhere. Remember the joy of the angels when the earth was created? Job 38:6 Jehovah LOVES to watch his ‘children’ enjoy HIS works…(partial quote)

I KNOW–according to Mormon theology, all humankind existed as spirit beings in heaven before coming to earth. The purpose of their coming to earth is so that they can be tested and, if successful, be exalted, that they may eventually become gods themselves with worlds of their own. So Mormons believe in the existence of not one but many gods, each of whom rules over a world of his own. Brigham Young, second president of the church, once said: “How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are passing through.”These beliefs explain why so much emphasis is placed on marriage and the family. It is viewed as a duty for faithful Mormons to marry and to have as many children as they can care for so that they can provide physical bodies for other spirits to come to earth.

It also becomes clear why Mormons are characteristically hardworking and achievement-conscious, whether it be in education, politics or business. It is all a part of the process of eternal progression toward the celestial kingdom.

—Is this correct? I don’t want to say something that is not correct.

**SO why test mankind when he already had millions of obedient angels? It doesn’t make sense. Don’t forget the ‘Tree of Life was in the middle of the garden’ if they had been faithful even a little they would have eaten from it soon–no need for a long test *Luke 16:10 (King James Version)
*
10He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

QUOTE
So God allowed Satan to tempt mankind in order to provide that option"
. Was Satan working for God? Where in your belief did satan come from?

…“But the good news is that this testing period does not last very long; and when it is over, if we pass the test, the suffering will end, and we will be happy for the rest of the eternity to come. That is the Mormon explanation of why God permits evil and suffering to exist in the world in which we presently live.”

Wait a mininute "when the testing ends"? What about the future will there be more children born on YOUR NEW planet? Won’t they need to be tested? When does it end? When ALL in the heavens have been "humanized’ and tested? WHY were they tested in the first place? Do you realize Matt 7:13,14 says very few will survive?

*Now you tell me how that differs from the JW explanation, and why you think your explanation is better than ours./*COLOR]

that’s next…

 

[dj_dave]

In keeping with that tradition, the list above by scholars is another fine example. They know that most people will not take the trouble to look up the actual quotes to see if they are indeed in contex. For example let’s look at Robert Young from the above list:

*Here are Young’s comments in full:
“John 1:1 And the Word was God, ] more lit. ‘and a God (i.e., a Divine Being) was the Word,’ that is, he was existing and recognized as such” (Young, Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible). *

*It is doubtful Dr. Young intended his words to support something akin to the NWT rendering, “The Word was a god.” Young was a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland at a time when some of the more liberal members of that church were questioning the adherence to the Westminster Confession as their defining rule of faith. *
*forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#Young

more lit. ‘and a God (i.e., a Divine Being) was the Word,’ that is, he was existing and recognized as such" (Young, Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible).

[END QUOTE]*
HE SAID WHAT HE SAID DID HE NOT? COMPARE *…*Some, like Fergus Ferguson, were bought under scrutiny by the leaders of the Free Church for (among other things) advocating anti-Trinitarian views. That someone as prominent as Young could remain in the conservative wing of the orthodox Free Church and have advocated Christ as a secondary “god” is **unlikely/**I].web.archive.org/web/20031203010345/hector3000.future.easyspace.com/germans.htm ALSO SEE web.archive.org/web/20031204212525/hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm

 

[dj_dave]

**

"*But in order for man to be tested in this way, he had to be free to make a choice between good and evil; and he couldn’t be free to choose between good and evil if that choice was not offered to him in the first place.

*I don’t know why you should think that, but I will tell you what role Adam and Eve play in this act. We believe that the Fall of Adam and Eve was a necessary **part of the above plan, for the simple reason that man could not be tested to see if he would choose between good and evil if he didn’t know the difference between the two in the first place.
[END QUOTE]

He knew the difference–**HE WAS TOLD THAT HE WOULD DIE!!! AND **to say that this was all a **plan, **is to blame God for all of the suffering.

All god allowed is a small test BEFORE he could allow them to eat from the Tree of Life
What was the ‘tree of life’? NOTICE:

*** it-2 p. 247 Life ***
This tree evidently had no intrinsic life-giving qualities in its fruit, but it represented God’s guarantee of life “to time indefinite” to the one whom God would allow to eat of its fruit. Since the tree was put there by God, undoubtedly Adam would have been permitted to eat this fruit after proving faithful to a point that God considered satisfactory and sufficient. When Adam transgressed, he was prevented from having opportunity to eat from the tree, Jehovah saying: “Now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite,—.” Then Jehovah followed his words with action. He would not allow one unworthy of life to live in the garden made for righteous persons and to eat of the tree of life.—Ge 3:22,23.

"man could not be tested to see if he would choose between good and evil if he didn’t know the difference between the two in the first place. "

AGAIN–
Our first parents were not left without guidelines. Rather, they were warned of the consequences of wrongdoing. (Genesis 2:17) So the evidence indicates that when Adam was faced with a moral decision, he chose to do what to him seemed expedient or advantageous at the time. He followed his wife in her wrongdoing instead of considering his relationship with his Creator or the long-term effects of his action. He also tried later to shift the blame to Jehovah, saying that the wife He had provided misled him.—Genesis 3:6,12; 1Timothy 2:14. They did not have to chose WRONG to appreciate the difference between the two. DO you have to cut off one of your fingers to appreciate the other nine?

…CONSIDER: if I were to do something that you wanted me to do, would you condemn me for it? ... Then, if Adam’s sin was God’s will, why was Adam driven out of Eden as a sinner? (Gen. 3:17-19, 23,*24)’

Here is what God set before Adam and Eve: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, …as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.’” (Gen. 1:28; 2:16,*17)

"Fall of Adam and Eve was a necessary "–NO, the test was necessary, not the fall.

SERIOUSLY, Would you encourage your children to undertake a project with a marvelous future, knowing from the start that it was doomed to failure? Would you warn them of harm, while knowing that you had planned everything so that they were sure to come to grief? Is it reasonable, then, to attribute such to God?

NOW… what if Adam had not sinned? What if he had not disobeyed God and he had been granted to eat of the tree of life? Where would he have enjoyed God’s gift of everlasting life? In heaven? No! God said nothing about Adam’s being taken to heaven. His work assignment was here on earth. The Bible explains that “Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one’s sight and good for food,” and it says: “Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to take care of it.” (Genesis 2:9, 15) After Eve was created as a mate for Adam, the two were given additional work assignments here on earth. God told them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, (That would take a long, long time) and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.”—Genesis 1:28.

Think of the marvelous earthly prospects those instructions from God opened for Adam and Eve! They were to rear perfectly healthy sons and daughters in the earthly Paradise. {Not from heaven)…As their beloved children grew older, these would share with them in being fruitful and in doing pleasant garden work to maintain that Paradise. With all the animals in subjection to them, humankind would be very contented. Think of the joy of extending the boundaries of the garden of Eden so that eventually the entire earth (not Earths) would be a paradise! Would you enjoy life with perfect children in such a beautiful earthly home, without any concerns about growing old and dying? Let the natural impulses of your heart answer that question.

22 Well, then, when Adam and Eve disobeyed and were put out of the garden of Eden, did God change his purpose for humans to live forever in Paradise on earth? Not at all! For God to have done that would have been to admit defeat as to his ability to carry out his original purpose. We can be sure that God does what he promises, as he himself proclaims: “*So my word that goes forth… and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.”—*Isaiah 55:11.

23 That the purpose of God for the earth has not changed is made clear in the Bible, where God promises as I have quoted many times (Ps 37:10,11,29)

True, Zerinus, if God later wants us to travel to other galaxies and inhabit other planets (which I’m hoping for) that would be fun!

Next: "but my Church doesn’t tell me not to read your literature. … JW’s discourage you from gaining a higher education… The JW religion … in keeping you as ignorant as you can possibly be not just about other religions, but in everything else."

 

[Dan_Parker]

ricko:
One thing that J.W. do is take writings of any sort out of context. I’ve seen them use “short quotes” taken out of context from Catholic documents to prove that the Trinity does not exist.

Dan:
You paint with quite a broad brush. I have seen Catholics and Protestants do the same thing. Let’s consider what bible writers teach in context and see if any one of them teaches that God is three persons and that the Son and Father are the same being!

Bible writers teach the basic concepts of doctrine in context. For example, we do not need to find a “water” verse from one bible writer teaching a particular context, add to that a “dunking” verse from yet another bible writer teaching in another context and a third verse by yet another bible writer which teaches “repentance” and then put these together in a way no bible writer ever taught to manufacture the basic concept of being dunked in water for repentance of sins. That basic concept is articulated by multiple bible writers. Just look at the beginning of the synoptic gospels to see this for yourself.

Not so the Trinity. No bible writer teaches the basic concept that God is three persons or even that the Father and Son and Holy spirit are the same being.

In short, EVERY, so-called Trinitarian proof-text I have seen is a short quote taken out of context!

Do you have anything other than the out-of-context short quotes I have seen used before? If so, please produce them!

ricko:
In keeping with that tradition, the list above by scholars is another fine example. They know that most people will not take the trouble to look up the actual quotes to see if they are indeed in contex. For example let’s look at Robert Young from the above list:

Here are Young’s comments in full:
“John 1:1 And the Word was God, ] more lit. ‘and a God (i.e., a Divine Being) was the Word,’ that is, he was existing and recognized as such” (Young, Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible).

It is doubtful Dr. Young intended his words to support something akin to the NWT rendering, “The Word was a god.” Young was a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland at a time when some of the more liberal members of that church were questioning the adherence to the Westminster Confession as their defining rule of faith.

forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#Young

The above link gives more detail and looks at others that debunk the “A god” belief.

Dan:
I think you misunderstand the way these quotes are intended to be used, at least the way I use them.

I quote these scholars as hostile witnesses. I do not represent them as agreeing with the theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is an appropriate way to quote scholars. Even in the legal arena witnesses are called who do not agree with the position of a particular attorney but whose testimony on a particular subject does help the attorney’s position.

In the case of the so-called Trinitarian proof-texts, some scholars, while being 100% Trinitarian, don’t agree that a particular proof should be used to support the Trinity. Since we are discussing the interpretation of John 1:1 and not what Young believes about the Trinity based on OTHER grounds, this is quite acceptable.

That being said, your expanded quote does not help you at all!

Trinitarians do not teach that the Word (one person of the Trinity) is a divine being. Trinitarian’s teach that there is one divine being in three persons. That is a big distinction to make because if the Word is a divine being all by himself and the Father is a different divine being, that is two beings, two Gods and that is Polytheism.

Therefore, Young, as you quote him, actually supports the belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses who teach that the Word is a divine being.

-Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

But you forgot the other parts- God is flesh and blood on a planet called Kobal (or is it Kolab? One is where their god lives and the other is where superman is from…); Adam was/is Christ, and there was no true original sin; Mary was impregnated by God in the flesh; If you are a good Mormon you will become a god of a planet and since you are sealed to a woman she will be the senior wife and you two will birth children who will populate your planet; your blood, should you be a sinner, will wash you of your sins- hence blood atonement- either you taking your own life or someone taking it for you (suicide or assisted suicide), which speaks loudly that your blood will wash you clean and the value of Christ’s Passion is of a lesser value. And why should they pray to Jesus Christ, once you have attained your godhood with them you will be equal to him. You decide- the poison of LDS is there, be careful… many will come in My name… he has warned us.

I did not make the above quote. Would you mind deleting this post?

Regards, Dan

 

[dj_dave]

Next: "but my Church doesn’t tell me not to read your literature. … JW’s discourage you from gaining a higher education… The JW religion … in keeping you as ignorant as you can possibly be not just about other religions, but in everything else."
END QUOTE

I once took some literature from a certain group to see what they had to say…3 days later it was all over his church that this person is ‘converting’ a Jehovah’s Witnesses–he was a hero!

NOT!

We have a 377 page book called “Mankinds Search For God” it contains hundreds of actual interviews with top leaders of major religions on earth.
on Buddism alone here is a preview.

Buddhism: 129-60
agnostic?: 159-60
appeal to Westerner: 143
atheistic?: 145
bodhisattva: 137-8, 146, 150
Buddh Gaya, India: 76, 143
canonical texts: 130-2
decline in India: 143
Emperor Aśoka: 141
enlightenment: 138-40
extent by 7th century: 142-3
Four Noble Truths: 138-9
image worship: 157
Karma: 150-2
Lotus Sutra: 148, 150
Lumbini Grove: 134, 143
Mahayana school: 144-5, 149-50
membership: 129
Middle Way: 137-8
nature of the Buddha: 137-8
Nirvana: 137-8, 146, 154
personal effort: 139
pipal (tree): 137
present trends: 156, 158
Pure Land school: 146
rebirth (samsara): 151
scriptures: 148-50
sects: 144-8
similarity to Catholicism: 33-4
spread by Asian refugees: 129
spread through India: 140-1
Theravada (Hinayana) school: 144, 149-50
Three Baskets: 17, 149
Three Jewels: 140
Yoga: 137
Zen Buddhism: 146
‘did not teach belief in God’: 159

WE acutally know more about a householder’s religion than most of the householder’s themselves!

…On hell:
sh p. 381 Subject Index ***
Hell, Bible’s teaching: 127-8
Buddhist depiction: 155
eternal torment: 34
Hindu teaching: 126-7
Muslim teaching: 297, 299
Taoist teaching: 174

ON:
Islām: 284-303
Five Pillars of Belief: 296
Five Pillars of Observance: 303
Ḥusayn’s martyrdom: 295
Islām’s spread: 292, 302
meaning of: 285
mosques: 298, 301-2
muezzin: 5, 301
number of Muslims: 284-5
Qur’ān: 6, 17, 284-91
Qur’ān, Ḥadīth, Sharī‛ah: 290-1
ṣalāt: 6, 301
shahādah, confession of faith: 296
temporary marriage: 300-1

…not much is said about Mormans though… we do have articles

*** dx86-08 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ***
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
(Also called Mormon Church)
appreciation for Awake! articles on: g96 6/22 30
baptizing for the dead:
Jewish Holocaust victims: g95 11/8 28
belief about Adam and Eve’s sin: g96 6/22 30
belief in preexistence: g86 6/8 22-23
discussion: g95 11/8 17-25
experiences:
bishop defends Witness pioneers: w97 11/1 20
writer evaluates Watchtower and Awake!: w04 8/1 7
Germany (Nazi): g96 1/8 28
gods: g95 11/8 21
Joseph Smith: g95 11/8 17-18
letter and reply on Awake! article: g96 9/8 30
political involvement: g98 9/8 28
sacred writings: g95 11/8 20
Book of Mormon, The: g95 11/8 22, 24-25; sh 17; g89 3/22 11
contrast with Bible: g95 11/8 24
successes in totalitarian and developing nations: w92 4/1 30

*** dx30-85 Mormons (Latter-day Saints) ***
MORMONS (Latter-day Saints)
attitude toward Bible: g53 1/22 18, 20; g51 8/22 15-16
beliefs: g69 5/22 30; w63 394; w62 216-220, 314-315; g61 4/22 8; w53 254; g53 1/22 16-28; g52 11/8 16-17; g51 8/22 12-16; ta 351; g45 3/14 24-26; g39 7/26 30; g37 9/8 784
in continuing revelation: g82 12/22 26-27
Benson, Ezra Taft:
comment on “the only hope of mankind”: w80 5/1 27
Book of Mormon: g82 12/22 26-27; g77 9/8 29; w68 40; w62 216-217, 313-318; g61 4/22 7; w59 326; mn 5; g53 1/22 16-23; g51 8/22 12-16; g45 4/11 23-27; g30 4/16 469-470
age of: gh 12
change in wording regarding American Indians: g81 12/22 29
business: g67 2/8 10
claims regarding John the Baptizer: g79 2/22 30
concept of God and man: g82 12/22 25-27
discussion: g82 12/22 24-27; w62 216-220, 313-318; g53 1/22 16-28
divisions: w53 359; g52 11/8 16; g45 5/9 18-20
evolution theory: g74 7/8 23
experiences in witnessing to members: yb70 232; yb68 213, 222; yb67 94, 171-172; yb63 158
founder: w53 359; g53 1/22 16-17, 19; g51 8/22 12; ta 351; g45 3/14 23-27
history: w53 359; g53 1/22 16-17; ta 351; g45 3/14 23-24; g35 4/10 442
implications of 3 Nephi 10:18, 19 as to ransom: g53 1/22 22-23
letter written by mother of Joseph Smith, Jr.: g82 12/22 27
membership: g82 12/22 24; g53 1/22 26; g52 11/8 16-17; ta 351; g45 3/14 23
Pearl of Great Price, The: g82 12/22 26; g53 1/22 16-18, 28
play about three young Mormons in wartime Germany arouses controversy: w84 5/15 25
polygamy: g82 12/22 26; g53 1/22 24-27; g51 8/22 14-15; ta 351; g45 3/14 27-28; g45 5/9 20-21
polytheism: g51 8/22 12-13
preaching: g49 8/8 24
priesthood: g51 8/22 15
purchase of names of deceased persons in Sweden: g84 1/8 15
racism: w76 427; w74 656; g74 12/8 30
“revelations” added to church scriptures: w76 427
“revelation” to open priesthood for blacks: g82 12/22 26-27; w78 9/15 11; g78 12/8 15
Smith’s (Joseph) choice as to his successor as leader of: w81 7/1 7
tithing: g53 1/22 27; w51 248, 250; g51 8/22 15

take your pick I will send you any of the articles…now, "JW’s discourage you from gaining a higher education"

 

[dj_dave]

…now, "JW’s discourage you from gaining a higher education"

“You young men and also you virgins . . . Let them praise the name of Jehovah.”—Psalm 148:12,13.
I’M SURE WILL WILL AGREE ZERINUS,parents are anxiously concerned about the future of their children? From the moment an infant is born—or even before—the parents start worrying about his welfare. Will he be healthy? Will he develop normally? As the child grows older, there are additional concerns. By and large, parents want only what is best for their offspring.—1Samuel 1:11, 27,*28; Psalm 127:3-5.

*** w05 10/1 p. 26 par. 2 Parents—What Future Do You Want for Your Children? ***
In today’s world, however, it is a challenge for parents to provide what is best for their children. Many parents have gone through hard times—wars, political upheavals, economic hardships, physical or emotional traumas, and so on. Naturally, it is their heartfelt desire that their children not go through the same things. In affluent lands, parents may see the sons and daughters of their friends and relatives move ahead in professional careers and enjoy seemingly successful lives. Thus, they feel compelled to do everything they can to ensure that their children too will be able to enjoy a reasonably comfortable and secure life—a good life—when they grow up.—Ecclesiastes 3:13.

People in Jesus’ day were living under very difficult circumstances. In addition to making a living, they had to bear the harsh rule of the Romans and the oppressive burden of the formalistic religionists of the day. (Matthew 23:2-4) Still, many who heard about Jesus gladly set aside personal pursuits—even careers—and became his followers. (Matthew 4:18-22; 9:9; Colossians 4:14) Jesus assured his followers that the heavenly Father knew their needs. He therefore urged them: “Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom and his righteousness, and all these other things will be added to you.”—Matthew 6:31-33.

Things are not very different today. Jehovah knows our needs, and those who put Kingdom interests first in their life, especially those pursuing the full-time ministry, have the same assurance that he will care for them. (Malachi 3:6, 16; 1 Peter 5:7) Some parents, however, are ambivalent in this regard. On the one hand, they would like to see their children make advancement in Jehovah’s service, perhaps in time entering the full-time ministry. On the other hand, considering the economic and employment situation in the world today, they feel that it is important for young ones to get a good education first so that they will have the necessary qualifications for a desirable job or at least have something to fall back on if needed. To such parents, a good education often means higher education.

The trend most high schools focus on is academic subjects that enable the students to score well in university entrance examinations rather than on courses that will equip the students for the workplace. High school students today are under tremendous pressure from teachers, counselors, and fellow students to aim for enrollment in the best universities, where they will hopefully earn the degrees that can open for them doors to promising and well-paying jobs.

. A New York Times Op-Ed article observes: “Higher education is … certifying the gap between the haves and the have-lesses.” In other words, quality higher education is fast becoming the domain of the rich and influential. Should Christian parents choose such a goal for their children?—Philippians 3:7,*8; James 4:4 COMPARE these Bible verses…(John 15:19) If YOU were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because YOU are no part of the world, but I have chosen YOU out of the world, on this account the world hates YOU.

(1 John 2:15-17) Do not be loving either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 16 because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever.–Would Noah encourage his sons and daughters to go to higher education classes?

Then there is the environment. University and college campuses are notorious for bad behavior—drug and alcohol abuse, immorality, cheating, hazing, and the list goes on. Consider alcohol abuse. Reporting on binge drinking, that is, drinking for the sole purpose of getting drunk, New Scientist magazine says: “About 44 per cent of [university students in the United States] binge at least once in a typical two-week period.”. When it comes to sexual immorality, the talk among students today is about “hooking up,” which according to a Newsweek report “describes one-time sexual encounters—anything from kissing to intercourse—between acquaintances who’ve no plans to even talk afterward.” Studies show that from 60 to 80*percent of students engage in this kind of activity. “If you’re a normal college student,” says one researcher, “you do it.—1Corinthians 5:11; 6:9,10.

There is the pressure of schoolwork and examinations. Naturally, students need to study and do their homework to pass the exams. Some may also need to hold at least a part-time job while going to school. All of this takes a great deal of their time and energy. What, then, will be left for spiritual activities? When pressures mount, what will be let go? Will Kingdom interests still come first, or will they be put aside? (Matthew 6:33) The Bible urges Christians: “***Keep strict watch that how you walk is not as unwise but as wise persons, buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked.” ***(Ephesians 5:15,*16) How sad that some have fallen away from the faith as a result of succumbing to the demands on their time and energy or of getting entangled in unscriptural conduct at college!

Should Christian parents knowingly expose their children to that kind of environment for four or perhaps more years? (Proverbs 22:3; 2*Timothy 2:22) Is the risk involved worth whatever benefit the young ones may receive?

What Are the Alternatives? …CONTIUNED

 

[zerinus]

What part of what you wrote are not “well known” historical facts? …

I think that all of them are well known historical facts!

In addition, while what you write may contain “facts” they may not be pertinent to our discussion. For example, you claim the Roman army was Pagan (a fact!) and that this is the only reason Christians would not join the army (what I question). …

I never said that was the only reason. I listed a number of reasons, and said that was one of them.

You claim that it is acceptable for Christians to fight in armies who are defending and not aggressors. Would you characterize the war in Vietnam as one where Americans were defending against attacks on their families?

Whether it was or wasn’t, is beside the point. If it wasn’t a just war, we shouldn’t have fought it; if it was, then we should have.

How do you view a Christian in one country killing another Christian, even one of their own denomination (ie Catholics killing Catholics, LDS killing LDS)?

Again, that is irrelevant. If an army attacking my country is the aggressor, I have a duty to defend my country against it, even if it happens to have LDS people in it.

I am not arguing for or against countries forming their own military forces. They are clearly entitled to do this. What I question is whether or not a Christian would participate.

If it is right to fight that war, it is right for Christians to participate in it. That is a duty they owe to their country. If it is wrong to fight that war, it is wrong for everybody, not just for Christians. There isn’t one rule of right and wrong for Christians, and a different rule for everybody else.

God is the standard of justice and therefore what he commands is just. I think we agree on this point, don’t we? What I would like to see from you is some proof that Christians should participate in the military of their governments.

I think there is convincing evidence for that in the Bible. Aside from the Old Testament where God has in many instances commanded wars to be fought, consider these verses from the New Testament:

Romans 13:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

In the above verses by the “power” is meant the civilian government. Here Paul not only urges complete submission to the civilian authority, but even says that it is ordained of God and is a minister of God. Complete submission to the civil authority would necessitate serving in a conscripted army. Verse 7 especially goes contrary to the JW practice of not saluting the flag, or honoring judges and rulers prescribed ways.

1 Timothy 2:

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Praying for kings implies acknowledging their authority. You wouldn’t pray for the devil would you!

Titus 3:

1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

Again, being subject to civilian authority would necessitate serving in a conscripted army when required.

1 Peter 2:

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Here is an example from Peter, the chief of the Apostles. That means that Paul wasn’t talking baloney! All Apostles agreed on those principles.

I provided you what God said was the reason. Let me repeat it.

NRS 1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood in my sight on the earth.

Since I don’t know you, would you mind answering whether or not you believe the bible is inspired and true? Do you believe the words in 1 Chronicles 22:8? The verse is quite clear in establishing the reason why David could not build the temple. The word “because” establishes this. What Saul failed to do is not pertinent to the question of why David could not build the temple or the fact that Christians ARE the temple.

I think the point you are bringing up is not pertinent. The fact that God said that to David about building of the temple does not mean that David shouldn’t have fought those wars. David fought those wars, many of them, because God had commanded him. And just as it was right for David to fight those wars when God approved of them, it is right for Christians to fight wars that are just. God didn’t tell David, “Don’t fight those wars, because afterwards you won’t be able to build the temple!” On the contrary, He commanded him to fight those wars. Therefore whether he could afterwards build the temple or not has no bearing on the rights or wrongs of whether he should have fought those wars or not. The same applies to Christians.

 

[dj_dave]

…now, "JW’s discourage you from gaining a higher education"

Should Christian parents knowingly expose their children to that kind of environment for four or perhaps more years? (Proverbs 22:3; 2*Timothy 2:22) Is the risk involved worth whatever benefit the young ones may receive?

What Are the Alternatives? …CONTIUNED

Before we discuss Alternatives…just one more point

We agree that there are many benefits to be gained from increased knowledge that institutions of higher learning can dispense. At the same time, **we do not ignore the benefits society has received from men such as Thomas Edison and Henry Ford, who had little or no formal education. We do not condemn the so-called higher education as such and reaffirm what we have stated before, that going to college is an individual matter. **At the same time, we feel compelled to point out the hazards of the college environment.
**First,/**B] although there may be exceptions, the thrust of college education is generally against faith in God and in favor of humanist philosophies.
Second, college education usually puts the emphasis on getting ahead in the world and attaining material success, contrary to the advice of Jesus and the apostle John.—Matthew 6:19-21, 25-34; 1John 2:15,16.
Third, the usual college environment fosters a spirit of independence and permissiveness, resulting in sexual immorality and drug misuse that may be difficult for many young people to resist. We encourage young people to continue acquiring knowledge, especially that found in the Bible because it leads to gaining everlasting life. (John 17:3) We also encourage them to cultivate the skills necessary to lead a useful, productive life with the emphasis on Jesus’ words at Matthew 6:33, to keep seeking first God’s Kingdom and his righteousness.
And fourth, the time is short. (Luke 21:34-36; Ephesians 5:15,16) It can be spent most profitably in serving our Creator.—ED.

NOTE ALSO Paul’s words–1 Tim 6:6-12,17-20

To be sure, it is a means of great gain, [this] godly devotion along with self-sufficiency. 7 For we have brought nothing into the world, and neither can we carry anything out. 8 So, having sustenance and covering, we shall be content with these things. 9 However, those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and hurtful desires, which plunge men into destruction and ruin. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains. AND PAYMENTS 11 However, you, O man of God, flee from these things. But pursue righteousness, godly devotion, faith, love, endurance, mildness of temper. 12 Fight the fine fight of the faith, get a firm hold on the everlasting life.
*17 Give orders to those who are rich *in the present system of things not to be high-minded, and to rest their hope, not on uncertain riches, but on God, who furnishes us all things richly for our enjoyment; 18 to work at good, to be rich in fine works, to be liberal, ready to share, 19 safely treasuring up for themselves a fine foundation for the future, in order that they may get a firm hold on the real life. 20 O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”

See also Hebrews 13:5) Let [YOUR] manner of life be free of the love of money, while YOU are content with the present things. For he has said: “I will by no means leave you nor by any means forsake you.”

Now, what Are the Alternatives?
Today, the popular opinion is that for young people to succeed, the only option is to get a university education. However, instead of following what is popular, Christians heed the Bible’s admonition: “Quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2) What is God’s will for his people, young and old, in this final stage of the time of the end? Paul urged Timothy: “Keep your senses in all things, suffer evil, do the work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.” Those words are surely applicable to all of us today.—2 Timothy 4:5.

Studies show that in many countries, there is an acute need, not for university graduates, but for people to work in the trades and services. USA Today reports that “70% of the workers in the coming decades will not need a four-year college degree, but, rather, an associate degree from a community college or some type of technical certificate.” Many such institutions offer short courses in office skills, auto repair, computer repair, plumbing, hairdressing, and a host of other trades. Are these desirable jobs? Certainly! Perhaps they are not as glamorous as some might envision, but they do offer the means and the flexibility needed by those whose true vocation is service to Jehovah.—2*Thessalonians 3:8.

Compared with the positions and rewards that the world offers, a career in full-time service to Jehovah is without doubt the surest way to a life of joy and contentment. Take to heart the Bible’s assurance: “The blessing of Jehovah—that is what makes rich, and he adds no pain with it.”—Proverbs 10:22.

In short–Even though Witness youths are interested in a good education, they do not pursue schooling with the intention of obtaining prestige or prominence. Their main goal in life is to serve effectively as ministers of God, and they appreciate schooling as an aid to that end. So they generally choose courses that are useful for supporting themselves in the modern world. Thus, many may take vocational courses or attend a vocational school. When they leave school they desire to obtain work that will allow them to concentrate on their principal vocation, the Christian ministry.
With all our hearts we really believe (Luke 17:26-30; 2 THESS. 1:6-10)

NOW WE WILL LET OTHER READER’S DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR COMMENT "JW’s discourage you from gaining a higher education… The JW religion … in keeping you as ignorant as you can possibly be not just about other religions, but in everything else"…WAS JUSTIFIED.

 

[zerinus]

NOW WE WILL LET OTHER READER’S DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR COMMENT "JW’s discourage you from gaining a higher education… The JW religion … in keeping you as ignorant as you can possibly be not just about other religions, but in everything else"…WAS JUSTIFIED.

Thank you Dave for your comments and participation. I have enjoyed our discussions, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss your religion with me.

 

[PRmerger]

NOW WE WILL LET OTHER READER’S DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOUR COMMENT "JW’s discourage you from gaining a higher education… The JW religion … in keeping you as ignorant as you can possibly be not just about other religions, but in everything else"…WAS JUSTIFIED.

I’ve been a lurker for the past 5-6 pages…

And since you’ve invited me to comment, I will!

I did not know that JWs discourage higher education, as proposed by zerinus. And, it seems to me, that djdave, while seeming to counter zerinus’ accusation, has actually confirmed it. It does seem that JWs discourage its members receiving a* formal* education at our universities. I find that a sad commentary on the JWs.

 

[PRmerger]

We have a 377 page book called “Mankinds Search For God” it contains hundreds of actual interviews with top leaders of major religions on earth.

take your pick I will send you any of the articles…now, "JW’s discourage you from gaining a higher education"

Could you post what the book has to say about Catholicism?

 

[dj_dave]

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;—2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; ]that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.[/INDENT]

DJ DAVE CUTTING IN: Paul Futher said: “I therefore exhort, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, offerings of thanks, be made concerning all sorts of men, concerning kings and all those who are in high station.” Paul’s further words indicate that these prayers ultimately are in behalf of God’s people, that is, “in order that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with full godly devotion and seriousness.” (1 Timothy 2:1, 2) We do not pray for one country over another to be sucessful in some war or otherwise–we pray that the preaching work will continue safely for our Brothers in that land. You really didn’t get the point of "Why God has allowed suffering did you?

The fact that God said that to David about building of the temple does not mean that David shouldn’t have fought those wars. David fought those wars, many of them, because God had commanded him. And just as it was right for David to fight those wars when God approved of them, it is right for Christians to fight wars that are just.

"The same applies to Christians"…“it is right for Christians to fight wars that are just”..Absolutley not Zerinus!

If I may enter in again: Jehovah God decreed that Israel should make war to rid the Promised Land of the depraved Canaanites. (Leviticus 18:1, 24-28; Deuteronomy 20:16-18) Just as God had punished evildoers by means of a deluge in Noah’s day and fire in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, so he wielded the nation of Israel as his sword of execution.—Genesis 6:12,17; 19:13, 24,25.
According to the Bible, Israel fought other battles under God’s direction, usually to repel unprovoked enemy threats. When the nation obeyed Jehovah, the wars it fought ended favorably. (Exodus 34:24; 2 Samuel 5:17-25) But disaster usually resulted when Israel dared to do battle contrary to divine counsel. Consider the case of King Jeroboam. Ignoring a direct prophetic warning, he dispatched his huge army in civil war against Judah. When the mayhem finally ended, 500,000 of Jeroboam’s soldiers were dead. (2Chronicles 13:12-18) Even faithful King Josiah once picked a battle that was not his. The rash decision cost him his life.—2Chronicles 35:20-24.

What do these events show? That in ancient Israel, the decision to make war rested with God. (Deuteronomy 32:35,*43) He had his people fight for specific purposes. However, these purposes were long ago accomplished. As I stated eairlier, Jehovah foretold that those who serve him "in the final part of the days” would “beat their swords into plowshares” and not “learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3) Clearly, Biblical wars do not justify modern-day conflicts, none of which are fought under God’s direction or at his command.

*(Deuteronomy 7:5) “On the other hand, this is what YOU should do to them: Their altars YOU should pull down, and their sacred pillars YOU should break down, and their sacred poles YOU should cut down, and their graven images YOU should burn with fire.
(Deuteronomy 9:5) It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to take possession of their land; in fact, it is for the wickedness of these nations that Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you, and in order to carry out the word that Jehovah swore to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

(Leviticus 18:24-25) “‘Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, because by all these things the nations whom I am sending out from before YOU have made themselves unclean. 25 Consequently the land is unclean, and I shall bring punishment for its error upon it, and the land will vomit its inhabitants out"

.*Nevertheless, mercy was shown to Rahab and to the Gibeonites because they demonstrated faith in Jehovah. (Josh. 2:9-13; 9:24-27) In the Law covenant God laid down rules for warfare that he would approve, stipulating exemptions and the manner in which this warfare was to be carried out. Such were truly holy wars of Jehovah. That is not true of the carnal warfare of any nation today.

With the establishing of the Christian congregation, a new situation came into existence. Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. Christ’s followers were to make disciples of people of all nations; so worshipers of the true God would in time be found in all those nations. However, what is the motive of those nations when they go to war? Is it to carry out the will of the Creator of all the earth or is it to further some nationalistic interest? If true Christians in one nation were to go to war against another nation, they would be fighting against fellow believers, against people who prayed for help to the same God that they did.

A sociological study entitled “More About Justifying Violence,” published by the University of Michigan, stated: “Since the turn of the century, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have consistently maintained their stand of nonviolent ‘Christian Neutrality’ through two major world wars and the subsequent military clashes of the ‘Cold War’ period.” Identifying the reason the Witnesses remain neutral, the study said: “The teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses stem from their conviction that the Bible is the inspired word of God.”
Yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses live by the Bible, which teaches: “The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother. . . . We should have love for one another; not like Cain, who . . . slaughtered his brother.”—1 John 3:10-12. Jesus said (John 13:34-35) I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another. 35 By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.”

Appropriately, Christ directed his followers to lay down the sword. (Matt. 26:52) He himself, glorified in the heavens, would henceforth carry out ‘just vwar’ 2Thess. 1:6-8; Rev. 19:11-21.

“You will find a disproportionately large number of successful Mormons in business, politics, education, and in other fields of endeavor”…OUR VIEW? Fine we wish them well with what time is left…

 

[dj_dave]

I’ve been a lurker for the past 5-6 pages…

And since you’ve invited me to comment, I will!

I did not know that JWs discourage higher education, as proposed by zerinus. And, it seems to me, that djdave, while seeming to counter zerinus’ accusation, has actually confirmed it. It does seem that JWs discourage its members receiving a* formal* education at our universities. I find that a sad commentary on the JWs.

WE also discourage having firearms in the home (excluding Hunters for food not sport), pot, dating different people without the intent to mary, sex without marriage; Bad associations; R rated Movies; pornography; Over drinking; lying; BUT IT IS STILL UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO DECIDE…ect.-- Yes, most of what we discourage does go against popular opinon (Matt. 7:14) DID you even read the scriptural reasons we cited?