Evangelicals and Witnesses are both silly and really annoying. Jesus never wrote anything down, except with his finger in the sand. I think that should tell us something...
How evangelicals and Witnesses are alike
Jesus considered the OT the Word of God/Scripture despite most being recorded by man (vs 10 Commandments/finger of God). The NT is inspired revelation from God whether personally written by Jesus or not (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21; Scripture is God-breathed and prophets were moved upon by the Spirit).
The Christian worldview explains creation (something does not come from nothing), life, intelligence, morals, etc.
Except it doesn't do any such thing. You say something does not come from nothing but you want to posit an infinitely complex god who just happens to have always existed. If you are taking refuge in cosmology or abiogenesis you are hanging on to a god of the gaps.
Intelligence and morals are explainable without resorting to supernatural answers. If christianity explains morals why is the bible so immoral? Why can't christians agree on almost any moral question we could think of?
The key point is the existence of God (theism) vs atheism. One we embrace theism, then we have to ascertain what is truth on the details about who Christ is, what He has done, what He expects of us, etc.
And to do that you need to believe in a whole load of extraordinary things with insufficient evidence and ignore a lots of logical problems.
gods of gaps? I understand, but nope. Your god is Chance, so this is your god of gaps. Either God objectively exists or not. We are not just proposing Him because we don't have an explanation. He is uncreated Creator, First Cause. I can't explain how this is so, but it is. Gen. 1:1 "He is there and He is not silent." -Francis Schaeffer
Both believe the other is condemned for their false beliefs (2 Peter 2:1-3, 1 Timothy 4:1-3, 2 Timothy 2:16-19, Hebrews 6:4-8).
I don't know what "evangelical church" you attend or attended, but all the ones I've ever attended, agree with the bible. Which teaches we are condemned because we are sinners nothing else.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that when Armageddon comes, everyone who is not a JW will be destroyed. They are the "only true religion" according to THEM.
All religions have a similar version of this belief. Evangelicals and JWs...I think that is what Jgnat is saying...or at least that's what I'm saying.
JWs are wrong. It seems strange that they think only a relatively small group will have the truth and remain to clean up this mess for 1000 years. There are hundreds of millions of believers, not a few million and fading.
'hundreds of millions of believers'............ could you go bug them for awhile
Transuman68: Jesus never wrote anything down, except with his finger in the sand. I think that should tell us something...
I heartily agree with you. I did a study years ago on how Jesus propagated the gospel. He did not write a book like Mohammed. Rather, he gathered a small group of followers, intimate enough so that they could eat and sleep with him and observe how he lived. He then sent them out to do what he did, spreading the good news and healing wherever they went. It was an active faith, not a scholarly one. Faith is spread person to person, being the example and learning from it. The rules came later.
Godrulz: It is an obvious principle that there is the true Christ and many false christs, worthless counterfeits.
You sound just like the Witnesses. I would prefer that you refer to the One Christ. I’ll say it again, because it bears repeating, attaching “True” to anything will ring false to an ex-Witness’s ears. The WTBTS has turned this in to a “trigger word” to build an aversion for the antithesis, and to set themselves up as the only True Religion.
Godrulz: JWs are also used to proof texts/eisegesis instead of sound exegesis. Verses can establish principles consistent with other verses, whereas JWs tend to bring up a verse to contradict another verse
I spoke of both groups condemning the other, and both using the bible to do it. The only difference, and it is a fine one, is on interpretation.
Godrulz: you are seeing a tiny glimpse of me here. You do not know why full beliefs (I have untraditional beliefs like Open Theism, denial of Augustinian original sin/eternal now, etc.) nor my works or lack thereof (they are not the issue anyway).
I wouldn’t presume, either, which is why I ask questions. I do believe you lack in good works because of your approach here, strong on doctrine and short on compassion. If your behaviour changes here, I might modify my opinion.
Godrulz: I am not hoping you are nominal, liberal, unregenerate…Some ex-JWs are heading in the right direction, but are not there yet (they are religious, not regenerate).
…which is why I won’t discuss my perception of G-D with you. It is not avoidance, it is outright refusal. You only see your way to salvation, no other. I am convinced you would take a completely different approach with me, depending on your sense of my “salvation”.
Godrulz: I think we have had a bad start, but I trust we will see each other's hearts and be able to have more respectful dialogue, more light than heat!
I will need to see signs of respect and dialogue from you before that will happen. Like I said before, I received greater respect from our local Witness apologist (djeggnog) than I have from you.
Godrulz: Why would I hope you are lost? My beef is with the WT/Satan, not with any individual victim of false or no religion. The issue is beliefs, not personalities.
Remember, you came here with guns blazing, seeking other evangelists to your “cause” and wanting to convert ex-witnesses to your truth. I think you glory in the hope of spiritual battle. I would be less confusing to you if I fit one definition or the other.
Godrulz: At the end of the day, know that you loved, certainly by God, and by me, believe it or not (we seek your highest good which is to know and love Jesus as Lord/God).
Your claim of agape love rings hollow. Start with filial and you might have a chance.
Godrulz: Here is an important distinction: many religions have BEHAVIORAL truth in common. Mormons, JWs, Muslims, Evangelicals share many common family/moral values, love 'God'/love others, etc. Only biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity (which is affirmed by a variety of believers/denominations with common essential truths) has REDEMPTIVE truth, salvation through faith in the real vs counterfeit Jesus/Gospel.
This is an interesting subject. As I learn more about other religions, I realize that Christianity is particularly concerned about doctrinal orthodoxy. That is, leaders are concerned that their people think and believe the same (matters of the mind). Jews do not require doctrinal orthodoxy. Questions of the afterlife, for instance, remain conveniently vague. Emphasis, as you say, is on behaviour.
Godrulz: …(test our beliefs under scrutiny and change when necessary)… We all do theology, but some do it well, and others do it poorly.
Quoting Orwell, “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.” When you refer to scrutiny and change, you are referring to everyone else, aren’t you?
Deputy Dog: all the ones I've ever attended, agree with the bible
Agreed. So do the Witnesses. It’s a matter of interpretation, and in this case, both think the other is false, and therefore deluded at best and dangerous at worst.
Godrulz: It seems strange that they think only a relatively small group will have the truth and remain to clean up this mess for 1000 years. There are hundreds of millions of believers, not a few million and fading
And yet you yourself speak of the highway being not too wide and not too narrow. You have been inordinately interested in my spiritual state, determined to classify me as either “in” or “out”. I call myself a Christian, but this was not enough for you. How is this any different than the exclusivity of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, other than a few percentage points?
“Of the approximate 2 billion Christians in the world today, 648 million (11% of the world's population) are Evangelicals or Bible believing Christians.”
So by your definition, two-thirds of Christendom are “false” Christians. I can see how religious discussions, even with Christians, can be confusing for you. You aren’t completely sure if you are talking to an “enlightened one” until they answer your twenty questions, are you?
Liberal, nominal Christianity is what the WT rightly rails against. Nominal Christians in Ireland, Middle East kill other Christians (Catholic vs Protestant, etc.). Are they really Christians or are they just religious? The WT wrongly lumps the rest of us in with them making a straw man (we also reject these indefensible things). The narrow way is Jesus, not a specific group/denomination. The broad way is any other way apart from Jesus. Countless doctrinal disputes are not the primary issue. There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death (Prov.).
I accept this exhortation from Scripture and trust we all do. I Tim. 4:16 "Watch your life AND doctrine (both behavior and belief, not either/or) closely. Persevere in them, because IF you do (some don't), you will save both yourself and your hearers (my goal under God)." Since the Bible warns about false doctrine and ungodly practice and emphasizes sound doctrine and holy practice (orthodoxy/orthopraxy), so should we (God knows what is vital and best).
How long to we have to deal with WT baggage before we move on and become mature, growing disciples of Christ? Some are interested in dealing with the fall out from past religious experience (good), but at some point, ultimate healing will only happen when we plug into the Healer (psychology is limited). What does it prosper a man to gain the whole world and lose their soul?