Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Then all first century christians must have been JW's. It has nothing to do with "belief." It is what the Bible "says," and it states it very clearly.Xamindar wrote:That is a JW belief.
In most cases I agree, but you never know when someone might have a spark of insight that propels them out of the mud of tradition into the light of truth.Diedel wrote:Pointless, if you ask me.
Been there, done thatShoku wrote:Believing that Christ was divine is true when viewing "Christianity" from a modern perpective. It is NOT true when one examines first century belief as stated in the New Testament;
And, quite frankly, had a lot of fun along the way. It was a good discussion that showed, I feel, that people who disagree can still have a friendly debate without calling each other names.I'm all for it. No need to hijack this thread, but lots of interesting topics popping up here that might be fun to discuss.Xamindar wrote:Maybe we should start a new thread if we want to discuss this stuff and leave this one for the results of the test.
Accurate enough. I do have serious disagreements with SDA/RC, but that's the main reason, I'm guessing, why they rate several percent lower.1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%)
2. Orthodox Quaker (99%)
3. Seventh Day Adventist (92%)
4. Eastern Orthodox (87%)
5. Roman Catholic (87%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (78%)
7. Islam (61%)
8. Orthodox Judaism (61%)
Can you list the scriptures that support this argument? Both on the rulership issue and using believer's to implement it on earth?The bible states clearly that Jesus has taken the rulership over this world back from Satan, and that it is the believers' task to implement it on earth.
I can say I don't think you will find one person that believes the EXACT thing. To me being a Christian is implementing the Christ in Christian into my life. No I can never be Christ, but I do the actions by reading & studying the Word, learning & spending time with him in prayer. How do you learn to become like someone you spend time with them. To me I want to represent Christ in my life to the people with my actions not just words. No we are not perfect, but if I can show Christ likeness & the Holy Spirit can resignate through me. People will come to him just by my countenance.Birdseye wrote:yeah but arent they a weird kind of christian that doesn't have a lot of standard beliefs? Not as close as calling a mormon a christian, but close.
I must admit ignorance as I don't know anything about them.
The Bible talks about Christ & the people of Christ have already won in the New Testament. That his people just have to run the race set before them, & fight the good fight. I will look up more verses, but this is the one I can relate off the top of my head.Admiral Thrawn wrote:Can you list the scriptures that support this argument? Both on the rulership issue and using believer's to implement it on earth?The bible states clearly that Jesus has taken the rulership over this world back from Satan, and that it is the believers' task to implement it on earth.
Ya think? hehe. What was your reason for leaving? Was it doctrine or a particular person(s) in particular?roid wrote: i think JWs are at the bottom coz i used to be a JW until recently. DIE! ..*achem*
As obvious by the results of the quiz, I have no quarrels with their beliefs. I'm curious as to which one(s) in particular and why. Belief without evidence would be very unwise.roid wrote:Doctrine.
do you have any experience with leaving a cult?
it's not smalltalk
I always thought a "cult" was simply a group of people who had common beliefs. I think the reason he used cult is because most people in the english language associate that word with negative meanings.Admiral Thrawn wrote: Also, what technically classifies a religion as a cult? I'm obviously curious since my "beliefs" closely resemble a that of a cult's.
What they do to themselves is one thing, but when they refuse medical care for their sons and daughters who are not old enough to make their own choices is nothing short of insane. A cult that I don't admire at all...Kilarin wrote:Koolbear is correct, according to one definition, all religions are cults. In that respect, it just means "A system or community of religious worship and ritual."
But the more commonly used definition today is:
"A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."
Which is quite useless, because the definition of "extremist" and "false" is to loose to be of any good. EVERYONE'S religion is a cult according to someone else by that definition.
Please note, I am NOT disagreeing with that definition, I'm just saying I don't find it very USEFUL.
The only USEFUL definition of a cult (IMHO) is not in the dictionary. It's "A religious group that uses coercive/brainwashing tactics to gain and keep members." And please note that brainwashing must go beyond persuasive indoctrination, or that definition becomes quite useless as well.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have some very strong methods for keeping people in the church. Walk out and you will be ostracized (Shunned) and separated from any family that doesn't live in the same house.
BUT, they don't lock people in rooms and refuse to let them go to the bathroom when they are attempting to convert you, and they won't shoot you or beat you up if you walk out. So to me, they don't fit my PERSONAL definition of a dangerous cult. I admit that they are a VERY controlling organization, and a difficult organization to leave.
This is not meant as an insult to JW's. I admire JW's missionary zeal. I admire their, (misguided in my opinion), willingness to risk their own life for their beliefs by refusing to take a transfusion. And I admire their (again, misguided IMHO) willingness to risk freedom for what they think is right by refusing to salute the flag. Even when I disagree with them, I can admire someone for having the guts to stick by what they believe in though it is inconvenient and dangerous.
But I find the practice of shunning a very unpalatable one, and when it comes to separating close family members, a practice that comes very close to coercion. BUT, as long as it is all voluntary, it fits within "Freedom of Association" (for adults anyway). It's a sticky and confusing area all in all.
Yes and no.Bettina wrote:What they do to themselves is one thing, but when they refuse medical care for their sons and daughters who are not old enough to make their own choices is nothing short of insane.
Perhaps if the issue at hand had anything to do with medicine, I would agree. But that's not the case. Else when queried why he doesn't believe in blood transfusions, a JW would quote peer-reviewed medical journals instead of dogmatic literature. The issue at hand is entirely a religious one, the medical facts of the matter be damned.Kilarin wrote:Consider, what if you had lived back in say, the early 1800's, and suppose that the government DEMANDS that you give your child the best care that medicine knows of. Unfortunantly for you, that care happens to be bleeding and is far more likely to kill your child than help them. BUT, we should trust the government to understand medicine better than the parents, right?
1) It's misleading to say Muslims believe in the Bible but also have an extra book. More accurately, Muslims believe the Bible (both the Jewish and Christian parts) is a horribly corrupted book, and that the Koran "restores" the religion to its original state. So they believe the Bible exists and contains small snippets of truth, but they don't actually read it or anything.Birdseye wrote:I don't know the verbage here, are you supposed to call mormons christians and quakers christians? I know Muslims believe in the bible and the mormons have an extra book like the muslims, so who is called a christian and who isn't?
Then I hope that "Mormon family" living with you doesn't read your twisted post in this thread. You would seriously hurt their feelings.Lothar wrote:Lest anyone think I'm a "Mormon hater" because I think their book is total garbage and their prophets lead people away from Christ... I do have a Mormon family living with me right now, and I love them dearly.
It's possible to disagree without being insulting. I don't think Lothar said anything insulting, unless you are just insulted that anyone would call the book of Morman fictional. People call the Bible fictional all the time, so I doubt if that is a big deal.Xamindar wrote:Then I hope that "Mormon family" living with you doesn't read your twisted post in this thread. You would seriously hurt their feelings.
Whoa! So let me get this straight, you are henceforth promising never to tell religious people that they are wrong!!! Wow! I never expected such a concession out of you Zuruck!Zuruck wrote:Isn't it kind of arrogant to walk around telling people that what they believe just as stoutly as yourselves, is a complete load of crap?
this is another funny discussion. Muslims that I have talked with (and I agree with them) say Cristians and Muslims actually pray to the same God. But, of course, these two types of religions believe the nature/characteristics of God to be very different.Zuruck wrote:Is it the christians god or muslims?
That all depends on what you mean by "the Book of Mormon is true".Xamindar wrote:I believe the Book of Mormon is true, Lothar doesn't. Can either of us call that fact? I don't think so.
I did it that way because I do, in fact, know the facts. You call my post "twisted", but what's twisted about it?Xamindar wrote:He was just disagreeing. But he did it in a way as if he knew the "facts".
That's a bit of a dodge. You can always analyze evidence. You may find there's insufficient evidence to form a strong opinion, but in the case of the historical reliability of the Bible and of the Book of Mormon, there's quite a bit of evidence. Now, I can't claim anything about the truth of the WHOLE book of Mormon or the WHOLE Bible as being fact -- there's not evidence relating to every single passage. But where there is evidence we can analyze, the Book of Mormon consistantly comes up short, which tells me it can't be trusted overall.I don't think you can apply "fact" to anything religion, or even history telling for that matter. There will always be points of view.
If their statements about the fundamental nature of God don't match up, how can they possibly be praying to the same God? We all have incomplete views, and there's room for some disagreement based on that, but at some point, you reach a stage where there's no possible way you can be describing the same God. What finally convinced me is hearing a Muslim talk about how Allah can lie, because Allah can do anything. But Yahweh can't lie because it's against His fundamental nature... so Allah and Yahweh can't be the same.Muslims that I have talked with (and I agree with them) say Cristians and Muslims actually pray to the same God. But, of course, these two types of religions believe the nature/characteristics of God to be very different.
