by stevieb1 120 Replies latest jw friends
aChristian,
It is called faith. Either you have it or you don't. You don't have to proove it. In fact, I don't think you should even try. You have it and I don't. Simple as that.
Jan,
Have you read, Varieties of Religous Experience, by William James? Interesting book.
WW,
You asked: Cannot God be found other ways?
I am a Christian. A Christian is a person who believes the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus taught, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I believe that when Jesus said "no one" that He meant "no one."
You asked: Are you saying all members of eastern religions are wrong?
I believe they are. WW, not everyone can be right about everything. When several belief systems clearly contradict each other they cannot all be right. They may all be wrong. But they can't all be right. The eastern religions disagree with the teachings of Christianity in many ways. That means if Christianity is right they must be wrong. You have to decide for yourself which religion, if any, is right. But you cannot logically say that many different religions, all of which clearly contradict each other in many different ways, are all correct in what they teach.
One of the reasons things are discussed on this board that may seem out of the norm for a discussion board about Jehovah's Witnesses is because of the mental and physical repression that many of us experienced while active members of Jehovah's Witnesses.
In one of my earliest posts on this board, I asked about those who had become more actively involved in taboo (in the mindset of JW's) sexual activities now that they have broken free of the chains of Witness think. Needless to say, the thread deteriorated into something I didn't intend.
My point is, many who post here have been free of the Witness thought process for varying lengths of time. Things that were once considered unacceptable to talk about are now considered acceptable topics of conversation. Those who don't desire to participate need not do so. The menu of available topics to participate in here is boundless. I for one enjoy that kind of freedom. Others do not and will move on to other boards.
If this board ever becomes simply a doctrinal debate about JW's or other religions, then I will not hang out here. I think Simon has done an excellent job of setting up this board to accomodate a vast variety of topics and tastes.
"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son." Dean Vernon Wormer, Faber College
Jan,
You wrote: Look, for example, to any thread asking for evidence for a historical Christ. We get Rex or someone else posting the same spurious list of quotations that have been debunked countless times on this board and elsewhere.
It does not surprise me that few if any first century secular historians paid much attention to the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. However, plenty of "evidence for a historical Jesus" exists in the pages of the New Testament itself. For instance, Luke, who was a contemporary of Jesus Christ and took full credit for writing the gospel bearing his name, tells us that he interviewed many eyewitnesses to the events he recorded and conducted his investigation very carefully. (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3)
You wrote: Read about the alleged experiences of Muhammad, and ask yourself: is it intellectually fair to reject Muhammad's conversion and still believe in Paul's?
No, it is not. However, I am not asking you to do so. I have only said that the time may yet come when you will find enough evidence to become a believer, as many have done. Some people obviously require more evidence than others in order to believe in One they cannot see. I have said that I believe that if your heart is still open to God that He will eventually provide you with all the evidence you need to come to Him. I was a tough sell. As apparently was Paul. It took us both a bit longer to become believers than it does some people. But I believe God provided us both with the kind of evidence we needed, and I believe He will in His time do the same for you if your heart is open to having Him do so.
aChristian,
It does not surprise me that few if any first century secular historians paid much attention to the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.
On the contrary, if the events we find in the gospels really happened, they were utterly dramatic. Jesus allegedly fed what corresponded to the population of an entire city miraculously (twice!). Herod did a crime so extreme it is amazing if it was not recorded (e.g. by Josephus, who carefully listed many lesser crimes by Herod). Not to mention all those "saints" suddenly resurrected and walking around in Jerusalem talking to people. There are countless other episodes, and stories of much less magnitude and importance are recorded in worldy sources. The silence is telling.
However, plenty of "evidence for a historical Jesus" exists in the pages of the New Testament itself. For instance, Luke, who was a contemporary of Jesus Christ and took full credit for writing the gospel bearing his name, tells us that he interviewed many eyewitnesses to the events he recorded and conducted his investigation very carefully. (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3)
Luke makes no claim to being an eye witness. neither do I see where he claims to have interviewed eye witnesses. That he claims to be "accurate" is meaningless; everybody likes to think that of himself. Luke makes no mention of what sources he had or how he analyzed them. This makes for a very poor history writer, and one whose credibility is generally regarded as low. Compare for example with the work done by Xenophon; generally considered a hallmark in history writing. In the few instances where we can check Luke, he doesn't measure up. He messes up on the dates of rulers around Jesus' birth. Of course, his birth and death account are impossible to harmonize with the other gospels. In the instance where we find an eye witness who also writes about the same events (Paul) we see that Luke is very inaccurate in describing events (or that Paul was dishonest/confused).
Luke also lifts passages out of Mark (as does Matthew) and attributes them to events that are different from how Matthew describe the same events. Compare for example sermon on the mount with Luke's sermon on the plains. Evidence suggests that Luke just made up most of the narrative around the logia collections he had access to, or relied on spurious hearsay and legends. Naturally, Luke was written decades after the events in Jesus' life allegedly took place.
Of course, the WTS also touts Luke as the great, accurate historian. Evidence shows otherwise. Luke is not even credible for "normal" events. How much credibility, then, should he have when he makes supernatural claims? Very little.
- Jan
--
Stevieb1
I agree with you, this is not a place to send someone who is looking for "true Christianity." Actually I don't know where you could send someone looking for that. There are so many different interpretations of "true Christianity" that it's hard to sift out all the false ones from the true ones. Since your particular interpretation of what is "true" or not will probably contradict the next "Christian" standing in line, it's best that you give anyone interested in your version of "true Christianity" just that, "your version." People tend to believe what they feel comfortable with, not necessarily what is proven or not proven to be true. The actual proof of any religion is irrelevant, as long as long as a person has "faith" in what they choose to "believe."
aChristian,
I see a constant interpretation by Christians as yourself that if a person does not believe in Christianity then they are not considered spiritual in your eyes. You see this board as a spiritual wasteland when in actuality it is quite the opposite. Here is the definition of the word "spiritual":
Main Entry: [1]spir·i·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'spir-i-ch&-w&l, -i-ch&l, -ich-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French spirituel, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus
Date: 14th century
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : <man's spiritual needs>
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3 : concerned with religious values
4 : related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism :
As you can see there is not a single word that gives any exclusivity to the word "spiritual" to the Christian religion. There are several people on this board who have studied religion without the side blinders of trying to prove one better or more "true" than the other.
It is exJW's like yourself and Steve that have simply switched teams in the Christian god game and refuse to see any validity in anything outside of your particular game.
If you truly did as your bible tells you to do and look for the truth like it is a hidden treasure you will find it very enlightening to conduct that search with something else besides just the Christian treasure map.
The Christian religion is so incredibly influenced by both Hindu and Buddhist religions only a spritual blind man will refuse to see it. It is not exclusive to a few traditions and variations of religious holidays but the very core of the story of Jesus, his teachings and his parables. Those who simply accept the Christian brand of religions as the "only truth" refuse to see this or attempt to investigate it further.
Those on this board who have chosen not to blindly switch teams but rather do a complete search of "spirituality" and religion are in themselves the most spiritual ones here. If they do not wish to choose a particular religious team to join or feel they may still have unanswered questions and desire a little more proof does not mean they are not spiritual people.
Just as "some" Christians like yourself feel that basic human decency is exclusive to your brand of religion the same goes for your claim to spirituality.
Bow your knees to whom ever you choose and if it rocks your boat than so be it. Just don't come off as someone who "knows all" and tells others that you alone own the one and only "truth" about life. We've had it up to our eye balls with exclusivity of spirituality and the one and only "truth."
Take care,
Dave
Sigh.
Here is a great thread that I started sometime last year--some of you will remember it; it is entitled "I *witnessed* to the 'Christians' last night,"
* http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=6878&site=3&page=1
The thread discusses whether Christians have the truth as such, and there are several well-made arguments on both sides of the fence. I encourage you all, ESPECIALLY FLOWER, to read the thread.
It's amazing, really. Lives are so controlled while a JW. So we think that we are scaring people away from the forum by living healthy normal lives?
So we want to go back to Witnet days?
Stevieb, I remember Witnet well. It's where I perpetrated my fraud, that I was actually still a JW. I was able to pose as a JW just seeking answers to some questions. On some counts I defended JWs; on some counts I ripped em a new ahole. And Yes, Witnet served its purpose. But do you realize that in order to keep Witnet running as that type of board took a whole group of 'Moderators' who had edit people's comments etc etc etc. Simon is NOT running that kind of board.
The whole point is, different people are attracted to different things.
So some will come here and be put off by all the 'sex talk'; some will realize that in the Borg they'd better NOT discuss sex, especially if it has to do with oral. [8>] And it will be a breath of fresh air and freedom for them.
Some of you are assuming everyone is just like you, which they're not. If someone is attracted to our forum, fine. If not, maybe one day while cruising the internet they'll find something that makes them question whether they have the truth.
Lisa
Hey Dave,good post.Achristian read it twice..LOL...OUTLAW
larc
Have you read, Varieties of Religous Experience, by William James? Interesting book.
No, but I'll have it recommened to me before. Thanks for the tip.
- Jan
--
aChristian...
I understand that you are a christian and that is fine. I think people should find the religion for them. I however disagree that there is only one right way to God. God is a God of love and I do not believe he wants to condemn nations of people just because they were brought up to believe something you do not. Does that sound like a just fair God to you? Another point is most all religions teach love of God and of neighbor. This is the core of Jesus' teaching and many of the eastern religions. It is about finding peace with yourself, your creator and your community. So I do not believe that it matters what religion you are. I believe none have absolute truth anyway. They all have good teachings for the most part. I think you have to look at the big picture instead of the little pieces...
