After 2000 years since JC was executed ,why have we heard not a whisper from GOD ALMIGHTY ?

by smiddy 268 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DeWandelaar

  @Cold Steel ... I am actually flabbergasted about this remark: as I said, we need not prove anything, though if you were willing to put the time into it, we could provide you and anyone else with compelling evidence. But evidence and proof are two very different things.

  Lol: the point is proof makes things UNDOUBTLY true... Evidence is something that MIGHT be true... I have seen a lot of "evidence" in the past that was presented by using tunnel vision. It has wasted 35 years of my life in that respect. I am absolutely sure, without a reason of a doubt, that your compelling evidence is backed up just the same way as all religions back up their claims.

  What kind of proof do I need to see in order to believe? Well... if someone who calls himself Jesus comes here and resurrects my dear ones... helps the people who are sick beyond saving... lost limps by accidents etc etc (so just like in the Gospels)... helps the poor etc I would be an instant believer because it would absolutely without a question of a doubt show me his will and power: his diviness. I mean... why would anyone expect ME or anyone else to trust a BOOK that is NOT written natively in my own language and got translated and put together by some powerhungry blokes a couple of hundred years ago and wants ME to then believe in the person that is written within it?? Why would God wants to be even connecting his name with a book that is contradicting itself (in other words: sells untruths), supports oppression of whole tribes of people, commits genocides and get away with it, see women as whores and filth and thinks it is oke to kill thousands of children? I do not think the bible represents him well. And to be honest: IF God is represented by the Bible then I do not want anything to do with him. I am not made in THAT image... I do NOT kill kids, I do not treat women like whores, I do NOT have slaves, I do not judge people by their beliefs or nonbeliefs, I have respect for the free will of other people and I want to be a good person.

  Same with the book you are putting your faith in: Why would I trust a person who is picking some stuff out of the bible and replaces some elements and some tribes (without proof of excistence mind!) and calls it "The Book of Mormon"?

  The fact that an american dude (call him russell or smith or whoever) who has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Jewish people of the Bible are starting a religion based on a vision and some plates with some bogus languages o r other "sacred" elements (that were never recovered) on it without even the slightest backup is not enough for me (as it should not be for anyone). I mean: there is now a guy in Australia who is claiming to be Jesus Christ reborn (he was actually a JW before!)... people cry and get all kinds of spasms when he is talking to them about their feelings... there are people coming from all the globe to meet this guy and to visit his "workshops". Must I trust this guy to be the Messiah reborn? Or is it just a nutcase? Does the fact that people gather followers and believers gives him ANY credibility to be seen as Christ Jesus? Now... substitute that bloke with Joseph Smith or Russell and you will actually see there is absolutely no difference between him and others.

  I absolutely do not understand why you can believe that crap after being held captive by a other cult for so long?!
• 

  transhuman68

  I think the fact that the second Mormon leader, Brigham Young was able to keep all his fifty-three wives satisfied must surely count as a modern-day miracle! Truly, God must have been with him.
• 

  Cold Steel

  DeWandelaar:What kind of proof do I need to see in order to believe? Well... if someone who calls himself Jesus comes here and resurrects my dear ones... helps the people who are sick beyond saving... lost limps by accidents etc etc. (so just like in the Gospels)... helps the poor etc. I would be an instant believer because it would absolutely without a question of a doubt show me his will and power: his [divinity].

  Now you’ve couched your answer in belief whereas I asked you what it would take to convert you to Christianity and the LDS faith. Belief is what the rich man displayed, but because his heart was with his wealth he was not converted. Saul, later Paul, was an enemy to Christianity, but his vision changed his heart and he gave his life for the faith.

  Still, you’re asking for a lot in exchange for your belief. If you were provided the proof you seek, would you dedicate the rest of your life to Christ and, if need be, give your life as many of the apostles did?

  Finally, you’re asking more than can presently be provided. When Jesus returns at the end of the battle of Armageddon in Jerusalem, he will instantly convert the remaining Jews who will receive him through the East Gate of what will be the third temple. In the temple, he will be anointed and acknowledged as the Messiah, the Son of God. Then the resurrection will begin.

  So realistically, what would be the minimum it would take to convert you? How about an angelic ministration? Or how about seeing Jesus, himself, and the wounds in his hands, feet and side?
  

  I mean... why would anyone expect ME or anyone else to trust a BOOK that is NOT written natively in my own language and got translated and put together by some power hungry blokes a couple of hundred years ago and wants ME to then believe in the person that is written within it??

  It’s an interesting way of putting it. The scriptures speak of reading them, then asking God if what is contained therein is true. The Book of Mormon is a second witness. If it is what it purports to be, then the Bible is of God and the writings of the apostles and prophets are true. Often, all it takes is reading the scriptures and seeking the Spirit of God. Both point the way to Christ. And though we speak of providing surefire proof that it’s true, again, it’s important to remember that you, not God, is the beneficiary. You stand to gain, as a co-heir with Christ, “all that the Father has.” If you don’t take the gift, you won’t find yourself in a never-ending hell of eternal fire, but you will find yourself written, as it were, out of the will. If you plant the seeds of doubt in your heart, you will reap disbelief; however, if you plant the seeds of faith, as the Savior said, you will reap a sure knowledge of the truth.
• 

  Cold Steel

  mP:The fact that an American dude (call him Russell or Smith or whoever) who has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Jewish people of the Bible are starting a religion based on a vision and some plates with some bogus languages or other "sacred" elements (that were never recovered) on it without even the slightest backup is not enough for me (as it should not be for anyone).

  The gospel goes first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. Then, after the times of the Gentiles, it goes back to the Jews, many of whom will be converted in a single day. That way, the first shall be last and the last will be first.

  Is there any evidence of an American Gentile being involved in this? Isaiah writes:

  And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

  And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.(Isa.11)

  So who is this “root of Jesse” of which Isaiah writes? Since the Lord has already “set his hand” to “recover the remnant of his people” which continues to gather to the lands of their inheritance in what was known anciently as Palestine, this descendent of Jesse, the father of King David, must have already appeared.

  According to Isaiah, this root of Jesse will stand as an ensign (a standard or banner) to the Gentiles. But in his day, the Jews will begin returning to the land God gave their fathers. Since the sons of Judah already are returning to their land, the root of Jesse should have already appeared and established an ensign or banner to the Gentiles. So what if that root of Jesse was Joseph Smith? Many of the tribes of Israel were lost in the north during the dispersion. We already know that Joseph was a descendent of Joseph (through both the Book of Mormon and by revelation). And no one else has arrived on the scene to gather in both the Gentiles and the Jews. Recall that Joseph was given the keys to the gathering of Judah by Moses in the Kirtland Temple in 1836. Orson Hyde, as a Jewish apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, also held those keys by way of ordination; and he was given the mission of visiting Jerusalem and dedicating the land for the return of the Jews. From that time forth, the numbers of Jewish settlers increased and honorable men such as Theodore Herzl and other Zionists brought in steady streams of Jews to rebuild the cities and prepare the people for the coming of their Messiah.
• 

  mP

  COLD: The fact that an American dude (call him Russell or Smith or whoever) who has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Jewish people of the Bible are starting a religion based on a vision and some plates with some bogus languages or other "sacred" elements (that were never recovered) on it without even the slightest backup is not enough for me (as it should not be for anyone).

  mP:

  I agree Smith and Russel are both liars and frauds.

  SO when are you going to apologise for using the TF as proof of Jesus ? is it honest to quote this knowing it is likely a fraud, wihtout mentioning this fact ?
• 

  DeWandelaar

  @Cold Steel ... English is not my native language so playing "word-games" with me does not work ;)

  Some people do not understand this simple fact: they refer to a book which I am not seeing as an authority (anymore). The reason is there are too many uncertainties about the origins of the writings/writers and the inconsistencies that are found in these scriptures are enormous. Trying to convince me by refering to the bible or to biblical figures or saying things like "The bible says..." or "The book of Mormon says..." are useless because for me it holds no authority.

  The other reason, as I have stated before, is that I find it hard to believe that God is interfering with people the whole time in the past and suddenly nothing happens for over 2000 years. It is the same as leaving a child alone with his mum... going to a other country for 30-40 years and coming back and say to his child: hey boy! I am your father so you better listen to me... how many credit does that "father" get from his kids?

  Let me refer to a scripture in the same book that I do no conscider a authority but religious people do... Proverbs 29:15:

  15 v The rod and reproof give wisdom,

  but a child left to himself wbrings shame to his mother.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Oh Cold, your belief in these miracle stories , sans evidence, is the cost of faith.

  I helped 'cast' a demon out of someone along with other missionaries and this evil presence exited via one of the missionaries such that he collapsed. There were four missionaries to witness it and it was quite an impressive experience. Except it wasn't. At the time, in our mythical world, we took someone suffering mental issues, attributed it to an unseen world and we all role played as taught to. Yes it was emotionally charged, yes it was strange and yes we absolutely imagined something was happening that wasn't. The 'possesed' guy was witterring about 'don't cast me into wet places I must remain dry' and it was all simply a mental illness. Crucially he needed medical assistance which he did not get from us. The missionary who was 'overcome by the exiting spirit' was a theatrical guy who imagined the whole thing. The possessed guy played up this whole fantasy with the help of some occult literature and the bible. I was there, I took part, I testified of what I saw but in reality it boiled down to a very silly bit of theatre brought on by religious brainwashing. No demon was cast out, one sick guy didn't get medical care he needed, 1 missionary pretended to pass out and 3 gullible teenage, missionaries joined in.

  Returning to your story of the possessed woman lifting off the bed I have to call BS as that doesn't even fit into LDS folklore where Joseph taught that evil spirits cannot perform physical interactions. Mental illness as exhibited by your stories ( and mine) is fertile ground for supposed miracle healing as there is no real evidence except the person sufferring the illness. As mentioned earlier lets see the real, evidence based (medical standard not breathless eyewitness) miracles. Where are the regrown limbs, bodies brought forth from a state of decay to life, deformed bodies made whole etc. they simply do not exist. Are you seriously believing that healing miracles are selectively applied by god? Is god consulting with his rapidly expanding government of dead apostles and deciding that healing x can take place because it still requires faith , yay for mad milly, but healing y would be too spectacular so no matter how much faith little billy has he will need to tough out his elephantism? At some point a strong skeptical attitude will serve you well my friend!
• 

  Cold Steel

  mP:SO when are you going to apologise for using the TF as proof of Jesus? is it honest to quote this knowing it is likely a fraud, without mentioning this fact?

  You are a class act, mP. You presumably read every word I said and I never used Josephus as an evidence of Christ. I simply said that many scholars believed the TF was tampered with, not completely fabricated. I doubt you’ve read Josephus as extensively as I have and suspect your opinions are based on those you’ve read from other sites. You’re inability to grasp even simple arguments and address them is another indication that I’m dealing with someone who isn’t out of high school. In all likelihood I was reading Josephus before you were born. And if you’re a former Jehovah's Witness, I can remove a few more years from your education. So if I’m right and you’re at that point of your life, you need to pontificate less and read more.

  DeWandelaar:...there are too many uncertainties about the origins of the writings/writers and the inconsistencies that are found in these scriptures are enormous. Trying to convince me by referring to the bible or to biblical figures or saying things like “The bible says...” or “The book of Mormon says...” are useless because for me it holds no authority.

  I thought we were talking about what it would take for you to be converted. I’m not aware of trying to convince you through appeal to scriptures. Perhaps you confused my responses to others as to yourself. Also, when you ask questions as to why you should believe a book written in other languages and so forth, of course I’m going to respond using the scriptures because that answers the questions you put to me, assuming they’re not rhetorical questions.

  So you’re refusal to answer my question about conversion backs up my earlier observation that even if God were to reveal himself to man with no room for doubt, there would be many people who would not be converted. You said such a display would make you believe, but from your response I strongly doubt you would be converted.

  And that’s why God doesn’t do it. If he did reveal himself with no question and you refused to change your life and your heart, accordingly, your condemnation would be sure. By choosing to remain ignorant, or in a state of disbelief, you can’t be condemned under the laws of justice as you would if you knew and then refused obedience to God. And there are many people like you who don’t know if there’s a God and they don’t care. They just want to live their lives and be left alone.

  Qcmbr: Oh Cold, your belief in these miracle stories, sans evidence, is the cost of faith.

  On this we agree, Qcmbr. I have tremendous faith in the stories that come down to us through people like Wilford Woodruff and others. For example, he relates the story of a former LDS fellow, turned anti-Mormon, who attacked him as he left the man’s home. According to Woodruff, the man was struck dead on the spot and Woodruff spoke of that experience for the rest of his life. So yes, I believe these things happened. As for the casting out of devils, how many people with severe emotionally disturbed disorders are possessed? We don’t know. You can say they’re all suffering from psychological disorders, but how do you know? You mention your own experience and now you dismiss it.

  Daniel C. Peterson, in his paper, Secular Anti-Mormonism, relates a story of his own:

  Many years ago, as a missionary in Switzerland, another elder and I met a woman at the door while we were tracting. When we told her that we represented The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she smiled quite oddly and, even more oddly by Swiss standards, invited us in. She immediately fetched her husband, and asked us to tell him the name of the Church that we represented. He too smiled oddly when he heard it, and I began to wonder what sort of people we had found. But then he explained that he was a Yugoslavian-born physician who had once been a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in our Church. And he told us a story that, I confess, I have never checked since; I may have some of the details wrong, but the gist of it is as follows:

  Decades before, he had served as a counselor to a priesthood leader in his native country as the communists were consolidating their power there. Several times, he said, this priesthood leader had dreams warning him that members of his congregation needed to flee because the secret police would soon be coming for them. And the man was right every time. However, the former counselor, with whom I was speaking, had eventually made his way to medical school in Switzerland, where his studies had taught him that revelation was an illusion. But how, I asked, did he account for his former priesthood leader’s remarkably accurate record of forecasting visits from the secret police, a record of which I knew (and know) nothing but what he had told me? “Brain chemistry and chance,” he replied. There was, in other words, no substantial or necessary link between the various brain states of the priesthood leader and external events. That they coincided was just sheer good luck for those who thereby escaped the clutches of the commissars. (I might add that the German missionary with whom I was working that particular day, a converted German merchant sailor who was, to put it mildly, plain spoken, thereupon asked if he could visit the home again with his tape recorder, because, he said, this man furnished an unforgettable specimen of how Satan deceives people. Visibly surprised by such bluntness, the man agreed that he could return.)

  Peterson adds, “If there were powerful arguments compelling us to forsake religious belief, and if there were no persuasive arguments for such belief, we might feel ourselves obliged to accept what I, at least, regard as the bleakness of the secular, naturalistic worldview. But we are not so compelled, and there are persuasive arguments for belief. The question is at the very least equally balanced. And in such a situation, as William James brilliantly argued against W.K. Clifford, religious belief represents a rational choice.”

  Skepticism, at the price of faith, is a poor trade-off in my view. Perhaps one day you will see that.
• 

  DeWandelaar

  @Cold Steel I did not respond to the conversion part because I was not willing to answer that one that day. Your tone seems a bit judgemental where only God can judge people. If I have overwhelming evidence and proof I will not only have faith but would absolutely be converted. I have always been like that: If I believe in something/someone I will go for it and for the full monty. That is why being in a snare of cult was hardass for me... it totally sucked me up.

  About skeptisism: you were a converted JW once... skeptisism got you out right? Skeptisism led you to the way you want to follow... I do not say you shouldn't because if it makes you happy then it is ok with me... I am just saying that because you became skeptical you could choose something else.

  About the use of scriptures: You do not seem to understand what I mean... if I say to you to proof me why a certain book or document is legit then it means I do not see that book as an authority untill I have the proof in hand. After all... it may be a fraud. What happens here is that I tell you to proof me it is legit... and you start to get things out of these scriptures of which I told you does not hold authority.

  It is the same as me asking you why a Donald Duck magazine is from devine origin . An answer like "because in volume 53 of the donald duck, donald is wearing wings and casts lightening on his neighbour" is not proof... it is instead the same magazine which origins I question that is trying to back up it's own divineness... Do you understand what I am saying? I want proof that the BIBLE or any other book is from divine origin... thus far I have only seen evidence of the contrary...

  As a witness this always annoyed me when I was walking with an other witness in service. A person at the door tells the publisher that he does not believe what the bible says... the publisher is taking the bible and shows the book of timothy about the importance of the bible. I then thought: dude... he tells you he does not believe in the bible and you get quotes from that book instead of proving why you should believe in the bible.
• 

  adamah

  Cold Steel said:

  And if you’re a former Jehovah's Witness, I can remove a few more years from your education.

  Oh, the exquisite and delicious irony of a CURRENT LDS member accusing an ex-JW (if he is?) of being gullible and uneducated! Seriously, you cannot make up stuff like this, you really can't!

  Cold Steel said:

  So you’re refusal to answer my question about conversion backs up my earlier observation that even if God were to reveal himself to man with no room for doubt, there would be many people who would not be converted. You said such a display would make you believe, but from your response I strongly doubt you would be converted.

  And that’s why God doesn’t do it.

  Thank you for telling us what your concept of God thinks: no ONE has EVER claimed to possess that capability of being able to speak for God before, not ANYONE in the history of the World, or even in N. America, EVER!

  Cold Steel said-

  If he did reveal himself with no question and you refused to change your life and your heart, accordingly, your condemnation would be sure. By choosing to remain ignorant, or in a state of disbelief, you can’t be condemned under the laws of justice as you would if you knew and then refused obedience to God.

  Uh, and how would that situation be any different from the situation humanity finds itself in NOW (that is, if someone foolishly believes a BIT of the silly scenario)? Our "condemnation is sure", as it stands (at least, per most Christians).

  Oh, and for the record, you're arguing against what the Bible itself fairly consistently (well, at least as 'consistent' as the contradictory Bible can be, that is....) offers as the REASON for why God chooses to play the extended version of "Hide and Seek" with humanity: it's not that "it wouldn't do any good anyway" or "it would assure mankind's condemnation", etc, but Christians are told that the complete lack of evidence and proof is actually A DESIRABLE CONDITION, since it presents them an OPPORTUNITY to BUILD their blind faith, eg:

  2 Cor 5:7: "For we walk by faith, not sight"

  Romans 8:24: "For in the hope (a synonym for faith) we were saved. But hope that is SEEN is no hope at all, for who hopes (has faith in) what they already have seen?"

  Point being, BLIND FAITH and EVIDENCE are on completely-opposite sides of the evidence teeter-totter scale, faith being "unseen evidence", based ONLY on what we'd hope to be true (as Hebrews 11:1 defines faith).

  A "true believer" possesses complete TRUST in their blind faith, where their belief actually thrives and proliferates in an environment free of proof or evidence (just like some kind of anaerobic bacteria that DIES in the presence of oxygen, since it cannot tolerate it). Blind faith is MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE with evidence/proof, so your seeking to build your faith based on 'witnessing miracles' and seeking "persuasive arguments to support belief" is actually indicative of WEAK Christian faith. The fact your past Mormon leaders spent so much time seeking persuasive arguments points more to their ignorance of Christianity as offered in Bible.

  Will it "wake you up"? Highly unlikely: people will believe only what they WANT to believe, IN SPITE mountains of counter-evidence. It's why JWs and LDS survive to this day: it's not about logic and rhetoric, but EMOTIONAL needs people derive from their religion. Applying tons of thought-suppression and prayer helps to ward off the cognitive dissonance of believing in fantasies.

  And there are many people like you who don’t know if there’s a God and they don’t care. They just want to live their lives and be left alone.

  Oh, have you realized that? More irony, since from my vantage point the problem seems to be that there's always someone who THINKS they've got it all figgered out, and actually believes their made-up deity is going to punish them if they DON'T intrude into everyone else's lives to knock on their door(s) on weekends. There should be a law against that, starting with Utah!

  You asked what evidence a non-believer would need to believe in a God: the burden of proof has risen EXTREMELY high in 2013, since men are performing "miracles" daily that makes Jesus' claims of curing blindness with dirty spittle seem like medical malpractice, eg the average cataract surgeon LEGITIMATELY cures more cases of BLINDNESS in a single day than Jesus did in is entire career. Doctors have routinely extend live-spans with improvements in public health, and routinely bring people back "from the dead" (where even 100 yrs ago, there's nothing more that could be done for similar patients). Doctors are treating and curing cancers that centuries ago would've led to a slow, painful death.

  Oh, those accounts of abusing the mentally-ill by diagnosing them with "demon possession"? Those Mormon elders should be rounded up and charged with practicing voodoo medicine and placed behind bars, AND sued by the families of the ones they victimized for delaying their treatment/proper diagnosis, i.e. their failure to get them in the hands of MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS who COULD actually diagnose and treat them properly.

  It's fine by me if people choose to intentionally remain ignorant and live in a world of fantasy which only harms THEMSELVES, but once their delusion spills over and effects and harms OTHERS? Yeah, I've got a problem with that, whether it's JWs who refuse blood for their children, or Mormons who try to practice medicine without having studied it but only by relying on faith in God.

  Adam