Shazard

Joined

• started 34 topics
• posted 457 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Shazard

• 
  3

  About Christ as creation of God (I guess for Lurkers)

  by Shazard in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if jesus christ was not at the begining (but he says opposite) then at the begining there were no truth, there were no life, there were no love!

  but if there were no truth and there were no life and there were no love, then there were no god as he is only source of truth and life and love.

  but as it is written, 1 john 1:1 that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the word of life -- 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the father and was manifested to us -- 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship [is] with the father and with his son jesus christ.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shazard

  Like 144K ?
• 
  3

  About Christ as creation of God (I guess for Lurkers)

  by Shazard in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if jesus christ was not at the begining (but he says opposite) then at the begining there were no truth, there were no life, there were no love!

  but if there were no truth and there were no life and there were no love, then there were no god as he is only source of truth and life and love.

  but as it is written, 1 john 1:1 that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the word of life -- 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the father and was manifested to us -- 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship [is] with the father and with his son jesus christ.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shazard

  Consider this. If Jesus Christ was not at the begining (but he says opposite) then at the begining there were no truth, there were no life, there were no love! But if there were no truth and there were no life and there were no love, then there were no God as he is only source of truth and life and love. But as it is written, 1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life -- 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us -- 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
• 
  51

  what is the definition of a christian?

  by sinamongurl in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  what does christian mean anyway?

  doesnt it mean a follower of christ.....a man?

  arent "we" supposed to be followers of god and not man?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shazard

  Common. It is so simple. Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ and has relationship with him as his big brother, saviour, king, friend, helper, protector etc. And "believe in Jesus Christ" is to believe in his Words and to believe that his Words are sayed to you personally. And to believe that he is Son of God. That is ethernal life! As Jesus Christ is ethernal life.
• 
  69

  No Absolute Truth

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this one is for the politically correct crowd: .

  is there no 'absolute truth'?

  do you want to live that one out?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shazard

  Sorry.. for formatting...
  
  So then it is sign I have to shut up
• 
  69

  No Absolute Truth

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this one is for the politically correct crowd: .

  is there no 'absolute truth'?

  do you want to live that one out?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shazard

  >I can't believe you think that is an argument. Right back at you; "sez who"? Please prove your beliefs in a demonstrable and repeatable fashion. And do >yourself a favour and look up 'Presuppositionalist', and see how the description fits you. My answer is - God! My authority and source of WoldView is God, the one who only is source of reality. So question is question of authority, and Atheism just dies against it as it does not recognizes trascendent source of authority and truth. So only source is left - human - where we get 6 billion "truths" which are equivalent. Why should I demonstrate and reapeat to you anything? Don't turn question asked to you against me. I don't claim that real is only something you can observe. Reality does not care about your proof. >Of course, you can't; you might have an INTERNAL proof, but then there are (for example) people wearing penis gourds and body-paint who claim they have an >INTERNAL proof of things which contradict your beliefs and neither you or these hypothetical witch-doctors can prove who is right. Question is, what for you is proof? Do we play by your or by my rules? Why your "proof" is better then my? Again sez who that reality is real only when it is demonstrated to you? You are not source of reality and you are not the one who judges what is and what is not real! So... proof by your or by my definiton? >Is it my duty to accept secular definition of rights? >As a human being? Yes, Sez Who? >I believe What else you believe? And why you want your system of beliefs to enforce on me? >so IF you are tolerant Definition of tolerance : Permissible degree of variation from a pre-set standard. Who defines standard? Are we talking here about your or my standard? Are you tolerant by my or by your standard? And if your standard then - Sez Who? >of others beliefs Comunism, Fascism? What so wrong about these systems of beliefs? Or we are not so tolerant to anything WE define as bad? Sez Who? >Or do I have rights to define my rights just like you have rights to define your rights? >Rights are defined by facts, not opinions. You are entitled to your own opinion, under which you might consider that you have some different or superior set >of rights. However, we all share the same facts, so if facts are used to determine rights they should be applicable to you, me, everybody. Even if you don't >like some rights people have as a result of a factual determination of rights. Are you speaking about evolution as fact whcih defines that black and white man are different and man and woman are diferent. These are facts, so question is why do we apply same rights to different facts? What is fact? Who defines it? Why your definition of fact is better then my? You say - observable and repeatable things are facts. So you say that history can't be fact. So we can't base rights on historical evidence, which are observable very limited and NOT repeatable, so actually we rely on opinions of historians about some shards of evidence! Sez Who? >Look, you're supposedly a Christian; why do I have to remind you that you shouldn't judge others? By your own beliefs you do NOT have the right to judge >others. I can't judge their heart and thougts which I just don't see. But I can judge their works and words. I know my faith and system of beliefs. But... again... you try to escape answer by attacking my system of faith. So which one system it is... your by your standards or my by my standards? >Do I discriminate gays when claim I don't like them or they discriminate me calling me homophobic? >YOU discriminate ("to make a difference in treatment or favour on a basis other than individual merit"). THEY describe; homophones practise homophobia >("irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"). Sez Who? THEY? Why they should be my authority if I can't be their? >If you don't like being a bigot ("a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"), don't try to change the meaning >of words, change your opinions. Again. Sez Who? :) Why you try to enforce your opinion of what is right and wrong on me and when I try to do it to you, then it is discimination. Do we have here double standards? >Why are you trying so hard to make it look like you are hard done by? Is anyone obliging you to marry a man? Is anyone obliging you to have sex before >marriage? Of course you have the right to a different opinion. You just don't have the right to force people to comply with your opinion. And have you rights to enforce people to comply with your opinion? But you are obligating me to live in the socety I don't want to live in. So I have rights to oppose it, and you have rights to fight for society you want to live in. These are our rights yours are the same as my no better and no worth. >Provided someone leads their lives peacefully and does not harm others or otherwise infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others by their actions, what >right has ANYONE to stop them from doing what they want to do just because such actions are (in another person's opinion) 'unacceptable'? See your opinion implies of existence of some trascendent truth "does not harm others". But atheistis are mostly Darwinists which bases it's claims on the very opposite rule - "Genocide is the way life shapes". So why don't you go to the end of the atheism but stop at some trascendent truth which you can't proove is ok. If there is no God, then there is NO rule you can legally stop me from killing you - it will be force of evlution and fittest of both of us will survive and you can't say I am doing evil, as there is no such term without trascendent truth and God. >Being black or Jewish has been 'unacceptable' to various people in the past; normally they quote the Bible to support their hate. Show me that place where Bible calls nationality a sin? >How do we know you are not just another hate-monger twisting Scripture to your own ends as anti-Semites and racists have in the past? Go read bible and see what it says and then judge me if I call sin what Bible calls sin and do I call sin something Bible does not call sin. You can check upon me very eazy. Where do I can check on you? What is your base... and will it be the same tomorrow? >I'm not saying that to be rude, I really want you to show that, unlike the many Christian denominations who have retracted racist or anti-Semite doctrines >after centuries of hate, you won't turn around in the future week and say 'oh, sorry, being nasty to gay people is wrong, I've changed my mind, sorry'; this >is effectively what the anti-Semites and racists using the Bible to justify themselves had to do, and as apologies go it stank. As I sayed. When text of God of Word will change and God will change definition of sin, then I will change my attitude to homosexuality (not men themselves). And I don't find any place in Bible where being black or Jew is somehow connected with definition of sin. More, there is specific claim, that there is no difference in Christ if you are jew, greek or whatever nationality. The same about gender. BUT Bible does not say the same about sexual orientation, and calls homosexuality a sin. So here is my base, and the text was there whole 2000 years and I am not responsible for somebody who twists what is written. >Who appointed you the spokesmen for the 2.1 billion Christians on this planet? Why my opinion is worth then any other? You wan't to take my rights of expression? And I am not speaking for them I am just pointing that if you will let majority to speak, probably you will not have rights to speak atall :) >Some of them are gay and consider themselves JUST as much of a Christian as you, if not more so due to your intolerance of peaceful fellow humans. Many >Christians think that anyone opposing homosexuality is missing the divine message of love we can read in the Bible and swallowing down the traditional >prejudices and hatred of the humans that authored the work. There is difference between gay christian and gay who says that homosexuality is NOT a sin. The same goes with any other sin. Christian opinion on what is sin is directly stated in Scripture. What Scripture calls sin - is sin, what Scripture does not call sin, man can't call sin too. So I believe there are meny homosexyal christians and actually there is NO christians who are not sinners (spit in face to anyone who claims he is sinless by himself). But christians does not tries to make not sin something is sin and make sin something what is not sin. It is secular world which all the time tries shape and reshape good/bad notaion thus actually shaking all moral base for society thus making society ignorant to anything. And such society is much eazy to rule... the society which does not have standard to judge their rulers and society which even does not have confidence that it has rights to judge the goverment. >It is not the number of people approving of an action that determines whether it is right or wrong; provided someone leads their lives peacefully and does >not harm others or otherwise infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others by their actions, what right has ANYONE to stop them from doing what they want >to do? If there is no God then everything is allowed. Even more, by the grand rule of "survival of fittest" genocide is the best and very natural way! >Neither a majority or a minority of opinion has the right to infringe the freedom of a peaceful person doing no harm to others, even if that person is the >ONLY person exercising that freedom. Who defines what IS harm and what is NOT harm? And when there is choice between several harms, which one takes precedence and Why? >That is what human rights is about. It is about the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. A peaceful individual doing no harm to others should be allowed to do what the >hell they please within those confines because that is their right as an individual. I have rights because I have rights? Sez Who? And who defines what is harm and what is not harm? Why gay parade is not harm to christians, why abortion is not harm to baby, and why euthanasia is not harm to ill people? And why Christian opposition to harm babies, values of family IS Harm? Sez Who? >I don't have to like it. You don't have to like it. But unless we can prove that persons ACTIONS harm or otherwise infringe the freedom of others, we have to >let them do it. So what is being taken as proof? Actually what is definition of harm? Today even saying color of mans skin is HARM to them? Why? Why the INDIVIDUAL is allowed to define what is harm to him and what is not? This is how you give Individual rights to rule the majority. What is Harm? Who defines it? Phisical injury? Obviously something else? Mental injury? Well... it depends on mental helth and you can simulate it to gain some advantage. What is Harm and how do you prove it? >You would think that as you discriminate against people for reasons OTHER than personal merit. Some heterosexuals are dreadful parents, as are some gay >people. Why not base your opinion on the individuals rather than your opposition against an entire sexual orientation? Basing discrimination against a >physical trait or behaviour that doesn't harm others - whether that is skin colour or sexuality - is still bigotry of the lowest form. Well how homosexuals are harmed if they are not allowed to have marriage which requires fulfillement of some prerequirements. Family is given it's rights because it produces tax payers. Gay marriage does not produce such additional value to society, so they can't be provided with additional rights. Or we have disadvantage... they take, but does not give back. >Ah... please confirm whether you are declaring some people are sub-human on account of their sexual orientation. I want to know what I am dealing with. I declare, that rights are given to have some mechanism working. Families have their rights coz they produce tax payers. Gays can't have the same rights as they don't provide the same value. Ofcourse about job and other things, there I claim that no sexual orientation can be considered. Or human has rights to live... why it is not applied to unborn humans? Why women rights of choice is higher then humans right to live? I am against giving rights to somebody who does not fulfill requirements to gain the raights. >By your spelling I take you to be a German native speaker... is that correct? No. Latvian. Sorry, my english is terrible :(
• 
  69

  No Absolute Truth

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this one is for the politically correct crowd: .

  is there no 'absolute truth'?

  do you want to live that one out?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shazard

  kid-A so when your base is destroyed, you attack my base? but here is the catch, my base is not based on empirical or observable evidence, so is not dependent on cognitive process of observation and interpretation. my base is written in Bible and I claim - it is my base of my worldview, if you have something against it, attack Jesus Christ not me.. that's why I am asking you who is your authority, who you claim to be source of your worldview... Evidence, Empirical proof - which is what? Your minds attempt to organise reality, your attempt to write your own bible for yourself. Guess what... I don't think you can compare yourself to Jesus Christ's wisdom! Sorry, so you will not be my or anybodys else authority about what is truth!
• 
  69

  No Absolute Truth

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this one is for the politically correct crowd: .

  is there no 'absolute truth'?

  do you want to live that one out?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shazard

  jstalin... Atheism dies against one simple question (you can apply it to any of your claims) - "Sez Who?"
  Is it my duty to accept secular definition of rights? Or do I have rights to define my rights just like you have rights to define your rights? Have I rights to judge you by my standart as you have rights to judge me by your standarts? Or you have rights but I have obligations? Do I discriminate gays when claim I don't like them or they discriminate me calling me homophobic? Do I have rights of opinion different then yours or I have obligations to accept your opinion which you have rigthts to have even if it is not acceptable to me?
  So... Sez Who - Grad Question for Atheists! What I hear... democracy... majority? What is majority you speak about 2 billion Christians and 1 Billion Muslim majority or 17% "minority" is one who defines "rights" and "bases"? Why minority is given rights and majority only obligations? Majority has similar rights to rule as minority! Why anaflabets are not allowed for ministers and presidents... it is discrimination on Intelekt basis. Why phisically disabled are discriminated in rescque service work? May be there are reasons why gays are not allowed to create family similar like why analfabets are not allowed to teach grammatics! To have some rights you have to have some prerequiremetns. To have rights of man you have to be man! And if you like to apply rights of animals to man, then be animal and don't ask for rights of human! Why you can have rigts to ask for rights and I don't have rights to deny you rights which you don't have prerequirements for?
• 
  69

  No Absolute Truth

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this one is for the politically correct crowd: .

  is there no 'absolute truth'?

  do you want to live that one out?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shazard

  jwfacts, sorry I don't know how to quote so I will use stupid e-mail method
  
  >Very true Shazard. The question has always been "what is truth?" It was always my big disappointment that Jesus did not
  >make a comeback reply.
  
  He did! He himself is truth. As he is God, and God defines reality, so you can say that God is source of this reality, he tells what is truth. Or better... what he says is truth. His words creates reality. By his Word (which is Jesus) world was created. So God spoke truth and it became. Reality! Reality is truth as only Reality is full reflection of reality
  
  >The truth always was that aeroplanes can fly, but how do you test that truth without the correct tools to do so? The
  >average person had to believe the earth was flat because they did not have the means to know otherwise.
  
  This is other case. Imagine man who goes from 21 century to 11 century and says that things can fly. You can choose to believe it or you can choose to burn him alive. Truth does not changes wether you can test it or not. But if the man demonstrates tremendous powers over disases, hunger, nature... then I tend to believe that things which I can't test still holds true if he says so. Christ didn't just spoke empty words, he demonstradet that he has power to say so. More... with his ressurection God put his approval on Christ and disaprooval on men's judgement and interpretation about truth. Ressurection is most strong claim of truth from Jesus Christ. So ressurection is corner stone of christianty, make it go away and christianity goes along with it.
  
  >That is why the simple truth about love is most important because it does not change. Many other incorrect beliefs affect
  >our thinking, such as length of creative days, or shape of the earth, or if these are or are not the last days, but they
  >really matter little in the scheme of things. It is how we live our lives day to day that matters, and whether it is
  >guided by love.
  
  I agree. God's reflective laws are everywhere... one who is honest to himself will find God's Word - that is Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ will tell you, that it's ok that you make mistakes, he can fix them and forgive you and take you into his protection. Only thing changes is - your attitude to God, and everything else just happens... without enforcement.
  
  >This is why fundamental religions are so dangerous.
  
  This is way it is so important to get to know Jesus Christ personally. When you know truth (Jesus Christ) it is eazy to distinguish lies. Bank workers does not learn to recognize false money, they are trained to recognize true money.
  
  >They make out that their beliefs are absolute truth, and control peoples behaviour around what is regularly proven not to
  >be correct. As soon as a person thinks with their heart they know that the WTS is not truth. By the yardstick of love it >is quite simple to see that a religion that says "do exactly what we say or we will shun you, family included" does not
  >have truth. Love also refutes the concept of the WTS that any person that does not believe 'todays' version of their
  >truth is not acceptable to God.
  
  This is one and only law of Jesus Christ - "Love". As one saint churhc father sayed (don't remember which one) "Love and then you can do whatever you like"! It is not possible to LOVE and still reject God. To love is to know God. Everyone who loves and who knows what love is recognizes it in Jesus Christ, he is perfect example of what it means to love till end. We love coz God first loved. You ar right... all the Christianity is all about love and faith in the love. If it is not love and faith in love, then it is not Christianity.
  And we have power to love coz God loved us so much so he gave his Son for us to live forever. That is love... to die for you own creatures. There is no more love then one when one gives his life for another. Actually I allways cry when I see some news when ppl are saved from fire, quakes, disasses... and I see that this love still resides in this terrible life. Know Love and you will know truth!
  
  Sorry for long post...
• 
  15

  how do jws explain roman;10;8?

  by badboy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this verse ,i think is where `jesus christ is lord' is written,the word kyrios is used,same as is used for jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shazard

  Long Ranger, like Jesus son of man is not man?
• 
  69

  No Absolute Truth

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this one is for the politically correct crowd: .

  is there no 'absolute truth'?

  do you want to live that one out?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shazard

  jwfacts you do common mistake mixing truth with interpretation of truth. Truths is reflection of reality and while reality does not change truth does not change. Metal boxes could fly in middle ages too, laws allowing plain to fly was there from the very begining of this world. Earth allways was round even when ppl was telling it is flat.
  As I told - test for truth is - try to ignore it in long term.