Shiwiii
-
Posts
1,092 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by Shiwiii
-
-
18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:
It’s a template. I don’t know who specifically fits into it and who does not. I’m not saying you do, Shiwii – how do I know? But it is a template nonetheless. If you like, I’ll say more. I’ve got nothing to hide from you or anyone else.
It is a template, I agree but it puts restrictions and limitations. I understand your position and have seen the world through the same lens before. I try my very best to not assign labels to people based on their opinions, as times I fail though. I DO assign labels to groups who profess to have the whole truth and anyone and everyone outside of the group is in the wrong. This is a narrow minded view held by MANY religious organizations. There are many religions who claim they are God's chose people, the only ones who know what God wants and the sole channel for communicating with God. Hogwash to all of that mess. If God wanted an strict group or organization, He would have laid out the structure and rules within the Bible. Some will argue that that IS what the Bible says, I beg to differ and would gladly discuss this in depth as long as it is an intellectually honest discussion. Of course there will be people who won't do anything unless they are told, and others who will be so stubborn as to not receive correction or guidance, but on the other hand you have those who DO ponder their relationship with God and other people without outside influence (other people's/groups opinions).
19 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:God has always provided some human agency to adapt his Word to those trusting in it.
I would have to disagree with you. The eunuch from Ethiopia was not a part of ANY organization and nor did he have any agency to guide him when he was speaking with Phillip. The lands that the early disciples went to and converted folks had no "agency" as told to us in the Bible. Also, Paul and Barnabas did not appeal to an agency about those in Jerusalem over the idea of circumcision of the gentiles, but rather corrected the Pharisees (who converted) about bringing additional restrictions/ unfair yoke, upon the believers.
-
24 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
Do you remember the name of the episode title?
"Its a good life"
24 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:I suppose I am like the head of the VonTrapp family in the movie "Sound of Music" who loved his homeland and its people, but fled when Hitler took over, and wanted him to serve HIS interests, and not the people of Germany and Austria's Interests.
An excellent film.
24 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:And I truly believe they really BELIEVE and think they do!, and what they do is kind and just.
That is where I separate the "I", the "we", and the "they"
understood and I agree that some really feel it is loving. I just wish people could take a step back , not unlike Captain VonTrapp, and take a real good look at the situation.
24 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:I consider Jehovah's Witnesses the only group that I KNOW ABOUT that could be Jehovah's name people, otherwise I would have to be an Agnostic ...
Why does there have to be a group? Couldn't one just read and abide by the Bible alone without additional material? What about the Ethiopian eunuch? He wasn't part of Phillip's group after the encounter and we are left to believe that that eunuch was just fine. Not saying that one should not fellowship, but why does it have to be so black and white?
I do not feel that life and our relationship with God is black and white. What I mean here is that what we consider black or wrong, probably is, but is also a tool used by God to show us stubborn people the error of our ways. Look at all of the failures of the people within the Bible. Peter, even after believing, got it wrong and was corrected. Couldn't this also be an example for us? Not everything we do is right or wrong, so why put it in such a box that one must be "loved" into conformity?
-
17 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
Shunning, as we do it today, threatens anyone being POLITE and CORDIAL to one being chastised .... WITH THE SAME PUNISHMENT.
17 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:This is CRUEL ... this is torture of the innocent as well as the convicted .. and it is EVIL.
Interesting.......
I noticed you said "we" in the first statement I quoted and in the second classify this action as evil. Not trying to pry to much into your personal life, but how can one reconcile the two within your own mind? I mean to align oneself with a group that practices things that you deem evil. While I quite agree that the practice encompasses more than the intended victim and puts innocent ones in that same line of fire, but does it work? Of course it does, by the exact examples you gave above. That doesn't make it right or loving, even if it is told to the group that it is out of love.
The whole thing reminds me of the boy who wishes people into the cornfield. -----Rod Serling
-
-
22 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
because as Luke 22:36 points out, the APOSTLES BROUGHT THEIR OWN PERSONAL SWORDS TO THE PASSOVER, AND MEMORIAL.
This scripture is stating that JESUS said to go sell their coat and buy a sword!
-
15 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
If you want to emulate Jesus ... act courteously with ALL people ...
If you want to emulate the Pharisees, first check the list, then shun, Shun SHUN yourself into an orgasm of self-rightousness.
Nice post, Isn't this exactly what Jesus preached? tolerance to all in humility and kindness, EVEN if they strike your right cheek!
The topic of this discussion is what did Jesus (NT) say to do. Matt 5:39, Luke 6:29, Matt 5:40
-
-
On 5/26/2017 at 7:13 PM, TrueTomHarley said:
I wonder how Shiwiii feels about Christmas. Should that, too, be avoided or embraced per individual conscience? How does she feel about tobacco? Same way? What of recreational drugs, which edge ever closer to normalization and legality? Or for that matter, ANY position that the Governing Body has given direction on? Is it birthdays alone that get under her skin, odd, since she has departed for greener pastures, or is it but one of a host of items that get her riled?
TTH, I am a he not a she. No hard feelings, I can easily understand the ambiguity of our usernames sometimes.
See to answer your questions/points:
I do not adhere to what the gb states, I only try to adhere to what the Bible states. That should answer your questions, if not then please by all means start a thread and ask away. I have nothing to hide from you or anyone else.
-
-
9 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Don't make me laugh. Speak plainly or not at all!
Its more so because defending the syllogism fallacy ( the fallacy that if an apple is red and a car is red, then the car must be an apple) used to support the control of people for harmless practices (someone was bad at a party, so party's must be bad and you cannot attend because we said so) is impossible, so one must take a diversion as to avoid the obvious (find something else to argue against because the point raised is too hard to defend).
-
11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
..reminds me of when Stalin gave a speech before the Soviet Politburo .... everyone ALWAYS stood up and clapped, and clapped...and clapped, and clapped.
The first ones to stop clapping would disappear mysteriously.
Is obeying your educated conscience about birthday celebrations the hill you want to die on?
Think about it ...
I understand your point and agree with you to an extent. However, this place is for discussion and intellectual banter, a place to gather minds with different perspectives and discuss topics that interest us. While I can see that this is not usually the case, it IS what this forum is for. I just happen to hold a different perspective on some subjects and like to see how the majority of jws view things deemed by the society to be wrong/right. I am here to learn, not what the society teaches, but rather why jws follow their teachings if the logic behind it is flawed (in my opinion of course).
-
-
-
23 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
And on birthdays, Shiwii, what happens if you do a search on the website or app?
my point being is this shouldn't be a decision made by a group of men to determine if you should or should not participate in a birthday celebration. I have looked at many references from the society on birthdays, and honestly find none of them satisfactory in explaining exactly why birthdays are bad. Each instance cited in the Bible and secular support, does nothing to refute that birthdays are bad. In fact the very same logic used to support the birthday ban is the same used to allow other things (pinatas).
Awake! 2003 Sep 22 pp.23-24 is your answer on pinatas.
-
4 hours ago, Nnaemeka said:
You missed two points from what you read in the reasoning book.
1. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 was quoted. It emphasizes the fact that what were written in the scriptures was to equip Christians to please Jehovah.
The examples of birthdays in the bible were bad examples and not worthy for Christians to emulate.
Then comes the second reason you decided to miss out.
2. Secular history. The Jews and early Christians associated birthday with idolatry. Why did you not realize that, Shiwii? The Jews wouldn't celebrate birthdays and when they read pharah's account and Herod's beheading of John they see it as a scriptural confirmation of what they are already aware of. Bad examples. Romans 15:4a comes to mind here:
As Christians we copy good examples.
1. How does 2 Tim 3:16&17 apply to the topic of Birthdays?
2. To use secular reasoning to prohibit birthdays and attach the "pagan" practices to them is the same with pinatas, but the society has stated that since this is no longer the main practice of pinatas, then pinatas are ok now. So by using that same logic, birthdays are ok too, since no one is worshiping the person. Romans 15:4 is referring to the OT, which had nothing to say about the prohibition of birthdays.
-
2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
thank you James, that was certainly a fun read. I think the point is the same, anything and everything not specifically prohibited within scripture can be supported either way by our own good conscience and understanding of scripture. A perfect example of this "right" to make up our own minds on the matter is found in Romans 14.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
This gives us the right to make up our own minds, and I'm not judging individuals here on their right to abstain from birthdays or cats. I'm merely pointing out the faulty reasoning the society is using to force its followers to adhere to the standards set forth by the gb, when the Bible tells us that individually we can make this decision.
-
15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:
Who doesn't?
Besides, you know full well that beheading is no more than an auxiliary point, nowhere presented as the main reason. These days (thankfully) it recedes even more as a factor when the subject is discussed.
(just in case you are on to something, though, I haven't taken a nap since I read your words)
I'm interested in your point of the beheading being auxiliary. If that is not the major support then what is? Isn't it the beheading that is painting "birthdays" in the Bible in a bad light?
From the reasoning book:
Definition: The day of one’s birth or the anniversary of that day. In some places the anniversary of one’s birth, especially that of a child, is celebrated with a party and the giving of gifts. Not a Biblical practice.
Do Bible references to birthday celebrations put them in a favorable light? The Bible makes only two references to such celebrations:
Gen. 40:20-22: “Now on the third day it turned out to be Pharaoh’s birthday, and he proceeded to make a feast . . . Accordingly he returned the chief of the cupbearers to his post of cupbearer . . . But the chief of the bakers he hung up.”
Matt. 14:6-10: “When Herod’s birthday was being celebrated the daughter of Herodias danced at it and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Then she, under her mother’s coaching, said: ‘Give me here upon a platter the head of John the Baptist.’ . . . He sent and had John beheaded in the prison.”
Everything that is in the Bible is there for a reason. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) Jehovah’s Witnesses take note that God’s Word reports unfavorably about birthday celebrations and so shun these.
Nothing in scripture states that the celebration of a birthday is prohibited.
-
16 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
If it falls down here, there is little point in arguing on any other basis. No need to sledgehammer this little nut.
I disagree, Its more so because defending the syllogism fallacy used to support the control of people for harmless practices is impossible, so one must take a diversion as to avoid the obvious.
-
6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Typical half-baked argument. The so-called "birthday fun", no matter how twee, is imposed upon children by adults.
Children would not attach any significance to birthdays, if they even remembered them, without this practice being continually reinforced by doting adults often under the influence of commercial and media propoganda.
To say that children are then "denied fun" is like a drug dealer complaining that prohibition is denying his clients fun from using a substance he has addicted them to for his own personal gain.
Try another tack on this please!
So instead of taking my comment as a whole, you choose the easiest portion to argue against.
Try addressing the notion that the society sees birthdays as a practice that God dislikes based upon the two instances given in the Bible to support their claim and the point which I have also addressed. So drawing from the society's line of reasoning, naps must also displease God. Is that a true statement? Does God dislike naps? Why? Why not? Using the same logic I would have to think that the society does believe that God dislikes naps....and cats too, but we won't go there just yet.
-
Taken from the article:
"A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area. "
Really?!?
Then why are birthdays bad again? oh yeah, the beheading thing right? Both instances in the Bible given in the articles speak of someone being beheaded, so they MUST be bad. Well then Mothers should NOT be giving their children naps!!!!!!! The practice of taking naps in the afternoon is tied with beheading as well! see below
How utterly ridiculous it is to deny a child the fun surrounding their birthday. Its ONE day of the year. Don't give me that BS "we can celebrate a child any day of the year, not just one day" That is a lame excuse to force conformity. Is that why "turkey day" is a day around thanksgiving? OR "present day" is near Christmas? or a costume party in early November is ok?
2 Samuel 4:5-7
"5 And the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, who lay on a bed at noon.
6 And they came thither into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat; and they smote him under the fifth rib: and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped.
7 For when they came into the house, he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, and they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him, and took his head, and gat them away through the plain all night."
-
On 5/14/2017 at 2:21 AM, ThePraeceptor said:
@bruceq made a fabulous work giving you scriptural and secular proof that the trinity doesn't exist and that the first christians didn't believe in such nonsense. You should read again his comments and try to respond if you think the proof he presented you is lacking. But no... you have to try again and CHANGE THE SUBJECT accusing everybody of hypocrisy, namecalling and such.
I tried exactly what you propose, only to have the subject changed. On top of that, there cannot be an intellectual conversation when one chooses to dismiss a point without hearing it out.
-
I'd like to continue to have this discussion, but your constant evading and intent to take this down rabbit holes, just doesn't convince me that you are capable of intellectual honesty. Those who follow down this thread to this point will see exactly what I am talking about. If you choose to continue,and truly want to have this discussion, then please by all means make the attempt to try.
-
1 minute ago, bruceq said:
So far you have failed to even give ONE Scripture to prove that the Bible teaches a Trinity. Still waiting.
You cannot develop a conversation without first laying a foundation of what the topic is. You can try and throw out all of your ideas and thoughts to the other party, but most will just go over their head,
2 minutes ago, bruceq said:And that is BECAUSE the Bible Writers were not Trinitarians. Very good.
So for you the word "trinity" needs to be there for you to accept the view is possible? Got it.
Is Governing body in there?
-
1 minute ago, bruceq said:
LOL. Who was "speaking" to Moses at the burning bush and said "I am the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob"?
but you first have to demonstrate your ability to have an intellectually honest conversation.
Did you forget this part?
Piñatas
in Topics
Posted
lol, dang it!