my bro introduced me to a concept called 'lying for the truth'.
is that actually something that the watchtower promotes?
talk about a contridiction, i didn't think it could be true that such a practice would be tolerated, but he says so.
I guess it was 'contradicting truth' lying to SS soldiers to keep them from rounding up Dubs for the concentrating camps. You're right, I guess I don't get it.
You make a good point here, 5thGeneration. I just thought we were talking about lying about false teachings and prophecies in order to get people to join, or prevent people from leaving.
Tec
my bro introduced me to a concept called 'lying for the truth'.
is that actually something that the watchtower promotes?
talk about a contridiction, i didn't think it could be true that such a practice would be tolerated, but he says so.
How could God, who hates lies and liars, possibly charge his sole channel of communication such a thing?!
He could not.
i am so disgusted right now, more with myself than anything.. we have this big albertsons grocery store monopoly game going where i live.....the more of certain products you buy, the more tickets you receive.
not only are there instant winners, but then you enter codes on line.. ha....after 2 months, i've won $5.00 and a bottle of clorox beach.
i have spent more than i ever would have normally.
What I heard back was, the coach told my son......"I'm praying for you son with that mother of yours"
I needed that laugh, Restrangled!
Thanks
i am so disgusted right now, more with myself than anything.. we have this big albertsons grocery store monopoly game going where i live.....the more of certain products you buy, the more tickets you receive.
not only are there instant winners, but then you enter codes on line.. ha....after 2 months, i've won $5.00 and a bottle of clorox beach.
i have spent more than i ever would have normally.
I once won a bbq by buying all the raffle tickets I was given to sell for a fundraiser at my son's preschool. That was cool reward for laziness.
I also one won a trip for four to disneyland... via a pop-up on my computer that promised I was the one millionth visitor. Since I was technologically naive at the time, I also called the number they supplied and gave all my personal info... stopping only when they asked for a credit card number to pay for some minor expense not covered by my winnings.
This was definite cause to be disgusted by myself... and I started getting all those pesty 'you have won' phonecalls and e-mails afterward.
Tec
Because if you lie even once, people will doubt your credibility, even if you own up to it and apologize. If you lie more than once, and repeatedly, then you no longer have credibility.
And when you do have something truthful and important to say, no will believe you. No one will be able to turn to you if you are offering them comfort, because you are not a trustworthy source.
Tec
terry has come up trumps once again - a great article for doubting witnesses, reassuring them they are not alone and encouraging them to face their fears and explore further .
http://www.freeminds.org/support/cult-survival/when-the-truth-is-not-enough.html.
email it to any jw you know having doubts.. thank you terry..
Great article!
By the way, what does bttt mean?
if one 'googles' the phrase, you get 167,000,000 hits!.
'bing' it, and you get 129,000,000 hits.. here is a sampling of opinion from just the first page of google hits.. 1] douglas groothuis, ph.d., teaches philosophy at denver seminary.
here is his 'take' on truth: http://www.leaderu.com/theology/groothuis-truth.html.
Ak - Jeff
I feel as though I have solid premises to base my faith. I do not, however, possess scientific proof of this. I believe in creation (and this is a big topic) But I do not dismiss evolution or any scientific proofs. I do not think they are in conflict.
From a creator, I progress to believing in Jesus... not because of miracles performed (though I do not deny them), but because I believe in the love and compassion and mercy and morals taught by him. I admire him. I love him. I believe his words. And I would love to actually meet him, which is the greatest 'reward' of an afterlife to me.
But you are right. If scientific proof existed that there is a God, then this and many other debates concerning Him would not exist.
I understand that quoting the bible to an atheist or near-atheist means nothing. I understand that this would also be frustrating to you because no one seems to understand it. I don't know what to say to help you on your journey. It is your journey. I can pray for you to find peace and truth - and while the actual prayer may be drivel to you, I hope you can at least accept the sentiment behind it.
Tammy
Gladiator -- Thank you. That was sweet of you to say... and also cute. Very cute:)
has anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
Notverylikely - Yes I have an agenda. My agenda is that people do not believe the lies that Christ-myth'ers have told. Could I be wrong? Of course, but I have not seen any evidence to the contrary. And I have not use biased sources to push my agenda. I have not present FACTS that have no proof to back them up.
So lets begin. I hope we're both doing this without malice? Just as a debate, right?
So, I am asking you, do you beleive that Jesus was a myth? Parts, all, none?
I do not believe Jesus was a myth. Nor did I start a thread saying Jesus was real or that I have the facts to prove it. Obviously there are arguments either way, and we each choose which of those arguments have merit. I only accused Christ-myth'er of using lies to pad their case, and wondered at the motives in that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
Interestingly, everything I found was pretty much split half and half on that. Clearly there is DEBATE on the subject, not necesarily lies. What is interesting is that that the only sites that claim the other side is lying and Christianity came up with all of this anew are the aplogetics.
This is what I found written in wikipedia that you quoted:
-- Some have tried to demonstrate Christian dependence on a Roman mystery cult called Mithraism, which was established prior to Christianity. Early reconstructions of the Mithras legend proposed, from Persiansources, that he might have been born of the union of Mother Earth and Ahuramazda, however the theory has not endured. Carvings illustrating the legend reinforce documentary sources that focus on Mithras being born purely from rock (saxigenus), [ 48 ] as Athena, the daughter of Zeus and Metis, [ 49 ] sprang from the forehead of Zeus.--
Every single other source that I gave you above that is non-biased (meaning they were not trying to prove or disprove a comparison between mithra and Jesus; they were just relaying the myth) claims Mithra being born of rock. I see nothing half and half here either by the way. I see that the 'theory has not endured.'
Interesting that when that standard is applied to your assertions they aren't lies either.
If someone claims that something is true, and then the evidence proves that claim false, then it is false. You cannot prove that Jesus did not exist. You can only speculate, based on which argument you believe has merit. No, you didn't, you were engaging in an attempt to push an agenda. You have some different conclusions based on the evidence and are clearly pushing the "lies!" lines pretty hard. I was showing how that words equally well in the opposite direction. Yes, I am pushing the lies line pretty hard. Because their claims are contradicted in the unbiased writings of mythology. I haven't lied about anything to do with Jesus. You don't think there's enough evidence to prove Jesus existed. Your choice. I think there is. My choice. You were. (backed into a corner) Are you trying to tell me how I felt? Or are you assuming I was backed into a corner and either didn't recognize it or am lying about it? I can tell. Appreciate the personal attack. (Perhaps we aren't both in this without malice after all? But I could be reading too much into that.) Again, you clearly have an agenda as well and since you said that you can only use unbiased sources that don't have an agenda, you unwittingly ruled yourself out as reliable. I am not a source. I am a person who has used unbiased sources to present her case and I have also looked up the sources you supplied. I have not told anyone to take me at my word. I have said to check them yourself if you want to know if they are unbiased, false or true. I don't think either of us is going to come around to the others' point of view. I believe they were lying, and have given my reasons for this. Padding your case, seems to me, to be deceitful at least. But perhaps I should simply have said that their claims were false, and then went on to explain why I thought so from there. Would that have made a difference to you? Respectfully, Tec (sorry - don't know how the post got so squished together)
has anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
I didn't make that claim. I am asking some some proof posotive for his existance since you are asserting Christ existed.
The only assertion I made was that the Christ myth-ers are lying. I provided proof for that on this and other threads. And if a Christ-myther makes the claim that Christ is a myth, then THAT burden of proof does fall on them.
Believe in Christ's existence, or not, as you prefer or as your reason and conscience dictate. I am only suggesting that people not disbelieve based on these lies.
I'm not your research monkey.
You made the claim that Mithras was born of a virgin. As you said, make a claim and the burden of proof falls on you. However... I looked it up anyway, which is what took me so long to respond to your post. About.com has a persian mithra story... Mithra born from a rock. David Ulansey who wrote the Origins of Mirthra Mysteries and includes Persian/roman models, also claims that mithra was born from a rock. Encyclopedia Mithra... same thing.
There is however a saying that Anahita is the Immaculate mother of mithra on the internet, which does not provide a source - in this same article it is mentioned that Mithras is also written to be born of a rock. And If one looks up Annahita in the Encyclopedia Mythica, then one finds that Annahita is sometimes referred to as Mithra's consort. No mention of her being his mother.
Toss them in the bucket with all the lies that the polar opposite Christ-myther use to attempt to prove his existance. Goose, gander, etc.
What lies? Not being able to provide unquestionable evidence does not make something a lie. It just makes it unproven. But saying that you have proof of something, and then not having that proof... that is a lie.
(Just to clear something up, when I write 'you', I am speaking in a general sense. I am not targeting you -notverylikely- of anything in particular.)
lots of people were persecuted long before the christians rolled around, that in no way makes them unique (in fact, they were, depending upon the time in history, the terrible perpetrators of persecution, does that prove Christanity false?).
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I never said Christians were unique in being persecuted. I only stated that this recorded persecution, combined with the other sources that I gave to believe that Jesus existed, were better than *sketchy* proofs. I also said this is my opinion. Do I also believe on faith, because of the love and compassion taught by Christ? Yes. Do you have to accept this? No.
Sigh....again. I never said anyone should accept lies. That's a classic attempt in a debate when backed into a corner, turn something around and assert the OTHER person said it and ask them to explain it. Since I never said anything of the sort, I have to reject the attempt at misdirection.
I never claimed you said that. I asked a genuine question, because it seemed like you were doing this.
example. Me- Christ-mythers lie.
You - So do Christians. It is ironic.
I also said that I hold Christians to the same standard. You never responded to my original post, except to say that Christians also lie. If I misunderstood you, then please explain how. I did not feel backed into a corner, and I don't have a clue what classic debate attempts might be.
Again, I never started throwing proofs and history around to say that Jesus existed. Decide that for yourself, and I wish you all the best no matter what you believe or don't believe.
All I did was rebut the lies that Christ-myth'ers use.
Tec
Poopsiecakes = I'm truly sorry about taking over the thread. Would you rather we take this somewhere else?
has anyone read this book?
i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.
the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.
sigh...
Debate 101 - If you make a claim (such as the claims about Jesus life are true) then the burden of proof lies on you. It does NOT lie on someone else to prove it false.
If you make a claim that Christ is a myth, then THAT burden of proof lies on you. All I've done is point out the proven falsehoods of those who are telling us that Christ is a myth.
The older Mithraic myth from Persia (not the Roman myth that had him springing from a rock) has a virgin birth for Mithras.
Can you give me your source for this, please? (Unbiased source) Because so far the only evidence I have heard about from the Mithras thing is from writings that post-date Christianity. Perhaps I'm wrong about this one. But even if I am, what about all the other obvious falsehoods? Why do Christ-mythers use them to pad their case?
If that's the standard we are using them then claims of Jesus birth (the census), geneaology, life, miracles, existence and divinity are sketchy at best.
I consider the books written, the mention of Jesus outside the bible, as well as the terrible persecution of Christians in the first and second centuries to be slightly better than sketchy. But everyone is welcome to their own opinion on this. It should be noted that sketchiness is not an outright lie, as are the things I've pointed out about Christ-myth'ers.
You do realize that pretty much every sect of Christianity has accused every other sect of the same thing? I mean, the Christian faith isn't even internally consistent. It seems.....ironic?
True, the Christian faith is not internally consistent. It has also done many terrible things that will have to be answered for- those things do not follow the teachings of Christ, by the way.
But are you saying that we should accept lies simply because Christians and non-christians alike have lied? I am as angry with a Christian that lies or deliberately misinterprets scripture to push their own self-serving agenda, as I am with anyone else.
It should also be mentioned that a misunderstanding of scripture is not the same thing as a deliberate falsehood.
Poopsiecakes - thank you for welcoming my view. I have no doubt that you and many others are honest in their search. The fact that these authors had no preconceived agendas is definitely a mark in their favor. And in the end, we must all weigh the evidence and theories and come to our own conclusion.
Tec
