25 Aug 10
Originally posted by Rajk999You hit that right on the nail. G-75's style is not so much to try and teach as to try and inform us. He for all of his qualities when it comes to his forum postings already has his preset answer from the watch tower. He's not so much trying to have an open dialog as much as inform us as to what is correct by the JW/WT standards. Nothing elses anyone has to say really matters too much. This is the disingenuous part of what He does. I like G-75 I sense he is a good guy but this is what is so frustrating.
Wrong? No
Impossible? Yes
Ask Divegeester ... 😀
JWs dont discuss. They inform. Its a briefing session.
They teach, you shut up and listen.
You understand?
And they have proof that they were sent by God to do that as well ...LOL .
Manny
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75You ever heard of Messianic Jews ?
I'm working long hours today and tomorrow at work so I'm not ignoring this thread, so I'll try to join in tomorrow evening if that's ok? But just a quick comment about the Jews and it is very true that they have suffered badly and it's shameful how they have. But Jesus was taliking about a group of people that would speak of his Fathers name and would us ...[text shortened]... to do. So I may be wrong but I don't think they are who Jesus was speaking of.... Thanks.
Manny
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by menace71Well I may not go about posting things right in yours eyes as well as others here and it makes a few mad including you at times but I've tried to have decent conversations here and it always seems to come back to ones like Rajj being completely immature and completely disrupting to any normal flow of conversations for us all. I'm only human and it makes me react as any human would. But then that seems to be his lot in life.... He has scriptural knowledge but seems to be completely unaware of how to use it in a positive way. It would seem he would use the Bible he says he believes in to show his view which would be very much respected, but instead he does the Rajj thing...
You hit that right on the nail. G-75's style is not so much to try and teach as to try and inform us. He for all of his qualities when it comes to his forum postings already has his preset answer from the watch tower. He's not so much trying to have an open dialog as much as inform us as to what is correct by the JW/WT standards. Nothing elses anyone has to ...[text shortened]... e does. I like G-75 I sense he is a good guy but this is what is so frustrating.
Manny
And do I and Robbie not include scripture after scripture to show why we believe as we do? It's easy to post an opinion, we all have them but this is a spiritual forum and we have been taught to use the Bible and know the scriptures the best we can. To me this silly, silly bickering and name calling needs to stop or I'm gone.
25 Aug 10
RC sent me an interesting PM which seemed to state (paraphrasing) that because the pronunciation of Jehovah has been in use for so long, and that a precise pronunciation would likely be impossible to verify, that it would seem silly to change it.
My response is that if you claim to be glorifying the name of the one true God, shouldn't you get it correct first? After all it was the Jews themselves that stopped using the name and went to Elohim and Addonai. I think what's important is the intent and not the actual verifiable name...after all we are not Jewish and Hebrew is not our native tongue.
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75I like the discussion🙂
Well I may not go about posting things right in yours eyes as well as others here and it makes a few mad including you at times but I've tried to have decent conversations here and it always seems to come back to ones like Rajj being completely immature and completely disrupting to any normal flow of conversations for us all. I'm only human and it makes ...[text shortened]... e best we can. To me this silly, silly bickering and name calling needs to stop or I'm gone.
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadplease re-read op
You didn't say they had to be killed because of their religion. In that case, you can cancel your second world war figures, as they too were not killed because of their religion.
Now what about Africans. How many of them have been persecuted over the same period?
26 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75If you've noticed I've refrained from attacking you personally(I try) but this is a forum where yours and my ideas for that matter will be challenged. I don't think attacking you does any good 🙂 I think Rajj just has a hard style and While I don't agree with Rajj attacking style there is the adage that the truth sometimes hurts. Man.....I just think and it's self evident that the JW/WT has fraudulent foundations. I guess something can be said for an organization trying to fix it's past but not to cover it up.
Well I may not go about posting things right in yours eyes as well as others here and it makes a few mad including you at times but I've tried to have decent conversations here and it always seems to come back to ones like Rajj being completely immature and completely disrupting to any normal flow of conversations for us all. I'm only human and it makes ...[text shortened]... e best we can. To me this silly, silly bickering and name calling needs to stop or I'm gone.
My biggest problem is the prophecies 100's that all did not come to pass. If the WT was serious they would denounce that and admit it was all fraudulent.
Manny
26 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerI have re-read it. What is your point?
please re-read op
What constitutes a 'people'? What constitutes a religion?
How many people died during the crusades amongst the Christians and the Muslims?
I just want to see whether your claim is substantiated by the facts, or whether you will simply keep adjusting definitions until the facts seem to fit the claim.
26 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerSounds to me like your claim that the JWs doctrine is unorthodox is based solely on your claim that you are right and they are wrong. ie you don't approve of their doctrine.
1.
of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2.
of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3.
customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4.
sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine.
5.
conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.
They could equally claim that your doctrine is unorthodox.
I am also waiting to hear what sources you have that do not fit your own description of the JWs sources ie "either uncheckable sources, or sources that the Academic world has deemed suspect."
26 Aug 10
Originally posted by duecerOh? Well the Chinese come to mind. Discriminated against and persecuted too in countries and cities outside China for many centuries, to this day in fact. The invading Japanese killed far, far more than 6 million Chinese civilians in the 1930s and during WW2 alone. So I think you DO need to talk a little but about how you measure 'suffering' and 'persecution' unless your agenda is partisan in some way rather than one that promotes real historical analysis.
I would counter this with the fact that no religion or people has suffered as much persecution as the Jews...
26 Aug 10
Originally posted by FMFand what of the previous 3000 years of history?
Oh? Well the Chinese come to mind. Discriminated against and persecuted too in countries and cities outside China for many centuries, to this day in fact. The invading Japanese killed far, far more than 6 million Chinese civilians in the 1930s and during WW2 alone. So I think you DO need to talk a little but about how you measure 'suffering' and 'persecution' un ...[text shortened]... your agenda is partisan in some way rather than one that promotes real historical analysis.
26 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadhave I offered any information in this thread that is not verifiable?
Sounds to me like your claim that the JWs doctrine is unorthodox is based solely on your claim that you are right and they are wrong. ie you don't approve of their doctrine.
They could equally claim that your doctrine is unorthodox.
I am also waiting to hear what sources you have that do not fit your own description of the JWs sources ie "either uncheckable sources, or sources that the Academic world has deemed suspect."
edit: especially pertinent: 4.
sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine.
you asked what orthodox meant, I answered.
26 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadbeing Jewish has the distinct quality of being both an ethnicity and a religion...religion or people...work on your reading skillz
I have re-read it. What is your point?
What constitutes a 'people'? What constitutes a religion?
How many people died during the crusades amongst the Christians and the Muslims?
I just want to see whether your claim is substantiated by the facts, or whether you will simply keep adjusting definitions until the facts seem to fit the claim.
26 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerWell that is essentially saying "you're wrong and I'm right". But unless you can back that up with some sort of reasoning, it remains nothing more than a matter of opinion.
edit: especially pertinent: 4.
sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine.
To simply say "The JWs are wrong because I say they are wrong" (which is what your original statement translates into) is a circular argument.