Why do all intelligent Christians disobey Jesus?

by StoneWall 347 Replies latest watchtower bible


    superpunk You have got it in a nutshell!

  • superpunk

    Don't we all create (what I like to call) comfortable delusions for ourselves in order to get through life?

    Like what?

  • leavingwt
    Like what?

    I've got a long list of things that I've decided not to worry about. Do you have any of those? I cannot prove to myself that I shouldn't worry about these things. Therefore, for me, I've deluded myself, regarding these items.

    I don't want to discuss the nitty gritty details or open a new discussion. Rather, I'm voicing a general opinion that Reason alone rarely dictates all of our choices in life.

    I could be wrong.


    leavingwt Liberal Christians do seem to be very nice people. (You must forgive my robust comments I am just a pagan gladiator)

    If intellectually dishonesty and self delusion are required to be a Christian it says little for the belief in a Christian God. That is why I don't have a personal relationship with Jesus.

    I am capable of imagining such a thing but I left the JWs because I refused to live a life of delusional devotion. Breaking through a prison wall into another cell is not escape.

  • PSacramento
    How can you be so certain? Perhaps the Old Testament is an inspired and accurate record of God and how he dealt with his people.
    The New Testament could be a hoax and Jesus an invention of cunning scribes.


    How can I be certain?

    Well, I can pull the faith card, which is a valid card to an extent, but I won't.

    I will say this, IF the NT is a hoax and the way that the OT scribes wrote what they believed was God's will, then YOU are in far mor toruble than I, LOL !

    On a serious note though, The OT has many passages that show God's displeasue on hos he was being written, Jereimah 8:8 comes to mind.

    Now, we can only base our PERSONAL views on our PERSONAL studies and experiences and viewpoints and notice that when I give my view I never say it is any other view than my own, and beased on MY expereince and my studies and my understanding, IF the OT version of GOd is 100% true, then WE as lowly Humans are far superiour to God than God is to US, and that makes me call into question MANY of the things written by the scribes.

  • PSacramento

    You know, the difference between a "liberal" Christian, not that anyone here has the right to label anyone else, and a Fundamentalist in they way they view the bible is what I have already mentioned, the preconceived notions that one has BEFORE reading the bible.

    I can see many former JW's, who are still fundamentalists in their views, haveing issues with that but that doesn't make them right.

    You wanna be a fundamentalist inreagds to the bible? fine.

    You wanna take it as literal, even those parts that were not meant to be ( Parables, metaphores, stories to teach moral lessons)? fine, do that, it is your choice.

    It just wouldn't hurt you to also take into account the history that went into writing the Bible and WHO wrote it, that's all.

    No faith shoudl be so weak as to NOT welcome being tested.

  • PSacramento
    So I'm not sure which I have more respect for. Liberal Christians do not appear insane, like fundies - but they do appear intellectually dishonest.

    No more than the atheist that can't admit that he does not have all the answers but can't accept God as a possible one, even though he doesn't know enough to rule God out completly.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    tec Regarding the 1 Timothy 4 passage you said:

    What issues? It seems to read very clearly. Anything on top of how it reads is open to interpretation, and in therefore, human error. Or the error could have been with the writers/or translation, etc.

    The question I have about this passage is in regard to how the word (so¯te¯r) for savior is used. If you insist on using it in the spiritual/eternal way, then the universalist have a case. But, since you don't claim to be a universalist, I would think we would agree on this passage. I don't see how this passage applies to our debate.

    No matter what side of the debate you're on, I think we all agree that God saves ALL men that are saved. They don't save themselves!

    However the jury is still out on that one. Some say he gets saved later on.
    If you take that approach, then what is to stop anyone from using this same thing in regards to anything that doesn't make sense or agree with their thoughts? Something else could have happened later...

    It doesn't make any difference to me. I personaly don't take that view. I'm just trying to keep an open mind. I lean toward the view that he wasn't saved. I don't have a problem with the fact that God loves men. The question here is does he love them all the same way.

    I'm wondering why you keep pressing me on the issue of loving everyone. Do you not think that I actually can do this?

    But in answer, no, I don't love them all the same. I am a mother and a wife, a daughter and a sister. I love those people who are personal to me more than I love the rest of the world. But I do have a common love of compassion and caring for all mankind - including those who have wronged me. And I have this common love for my family as well.

    If you have the freedom to love differently, why would you not expect that God would have at least that same freedom? That's why I keep pointing out that God loves his children more than the common love he has for all mankind. If you keep that in mind when you read Romans 9 it takes on a differrent tone. We, the Bride of Christ (Gentil and Jew) mean more to him, and are adopted into the family of God.

    Also, you didn't answer this:

    Without any judgment toward anyone except God. - DD

    How so? - Me
    I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything. I just don't understand what you mean, or why you think this.

    The arguement I normaly hear from univeralists is that a God who does not save all of mankind is unjust and unfair.

    n a c

    You are the stickler for only scripture.

    When it comes to settling disputes among the brethren, yes.

    It is very interesting to me that you assume Mark 10:21-26 has a happy ending somewhere. Why assume the rich young gets saved?It is in the scriptures as it is.

    I'm sorry if I confused anyone. As I've said, I don't assume that, in fact I lean toward the idea that he is not saved. I'm sure Jesus loved him, just not enough to die for him. If Jesus died for him, he is saved.

    I believe the bottom line questions are this:

    Did Jesus death/blood actually save anyone? Or (as the JWs believe) did it just make men savable?

    A problem I see that I likewise hard to deal with is the teaching I heard in a Calvinistic Baptist Church was one that naturally occurs from predesination is that God planned the fall to make his mercy manifest. I have a problem with that. "God saw that it was very good?" except that it wasn't good at all.

    As you can see I don't have a problem with that at all. In fact, I find great comfort in it.

    What practical value is there in forcing people to claim one of the many kinds of predestination men have thought up?
    Paul said he resolved to know nothing else but Jesus Christ and him crucified/impaled. I figure Paul got his fill of disputes aplenty.
    What does all this "doctrine"matter?

    I'm not forcing anything on anyone. The question is, is the bible? I don't believe these are simply doctrines of men. I believe they are clearly taught in scripture. How anyone can say "Paul wasn't teaching predestination" is totaly beyond me.

    Your charge against the early church fathers is puzzling to me. I don't see a foundation for it. Look at the "Recieved Text" for example, it was compiled by a humanist.


    It's not self-rigteous DD, far from it.

    Yes it is, pure and simple.

    What it is, is the simple recognition that a created being can't be MORE than it's creator and if God instilled in US these moral view of right and wrong then we can't be more right than God, can we?


    God is love and Love does not hate, so God did not Hate Esau, regardless of what was written.

    Can you fathom a God that Hated Esau before he was even thought of, Hated for what reason?
    God's indiscremanent Hate of people is all well and good for the OT Hebrews that viewed God that way, through Jesus we found that God is NOT that way.

    Sounds pretty self-righteous to me.

    That's how cults like the JWs get started. You sound like C. T. Russel. He had the same problems with the bible you're having.


    You accept that Jesus' words have been accurately reported, yet dismiss many other Scriptural witness accounts as opinion. You also dismiss many of Paul's inspired words. Even Paul quotes from the Old Testament which he believed describes God accurately: Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. Romans 12:19

    PSac picks a choses what he wants Jesus to say as well. I'm sure I can find some things Jesus said that would offend him.

  • superpunk

    No more than the atheist that can't admit that he does not have all the answers but can't accept God as a possible one, even though he doesn't know enough to rule God out completly.

    Come on. You're smart enough to know why that line of thinking is a load of horse-hockey.

  • PSacramento

    I do enjoy seeing Atheists and fundamentalists working in union :)

    Glad I could be of service ;)

Share this