Mysteryman
Member
- Feb 16, 2010
- 1,988
- 0
mjjcb said:So, he's insisting that if two people use the same phrase, than those two must be two persons in one being... something that no one would find in any way logical unless they've been indoctrinated by a trinitarian church. Moreover... JWs are Christian. Every time the governing body writes a letter, it's signed "The Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses." If the OP was a JW, he'd know that. The original poster copy and pasted an article designed to attack JWs from "gotquestions.org." Notice, after the original post, the original poster (solo) posted nothing but more propaganda from anti-JW attack sites... He had plenty of Ad hominem and Ad populum fallacious statements... but never made a single logical point. i.e. he stopped in to troll a group that wasn't likely to defend itself... I'd wager because it makes him feel "tough."Mohrb said:First off, MJJCB wrote:
The OP was most certainly not a JW. Apart from referring to JWs as "they" more often than not, he has a very over-simplified concept of JW doctrine, and spent more time passive-aggressively attacking JWs than anything else. ... Just the wording of the OP is obviously biased toward a trinitarian viewpoint. Although sometimes he says "we" ... he's already decided thatThe OP to this thread started out with a premise that you took issue with. JW's are not Christians, and he was a JW.
[quote:1hwoj7js]"If Jehovah is the Alpha and Omega (the first and last Greek letters), then the "first and the last"Â must refer to Jehovah, so the Witnesses claim. But when did Jehovah become dead? The only "first and last"Â who died and lived again is Jesus."
I hate to put it so bluntly... but honestly... some time try asking an unbiased party what they find to be logical. Ask someone who's always been an atheist (therefore has not been indoctrinated to believe one way or the other). That way you can get an unbiased opinion.
Chris, my mistake. I have to admit when I jumped in the conversation, it was well after it had been established and didn't read all of it. Interestingly, I went to see "Solo"'s body of work by clicking on his name, but apparently he is no longer a member, and I couldn't even view past posts.
Really, if we ask someone without any faith (an atheist) for their opinion, they from their perspective would say we are all loonies. Faith is complete folly to those who can't open their mind to it.
You can say when ever the governing body writes a letter addressed as "Christians", but that doesn't make it true. Can you give my post another read? Are you able to see my side of this issue, even if you disagree? From my perspective, a Christian is defined by his acknowledgment that Jesus was and is God Incarnate. To deny this and worship Jehovah, might make you a spiritual person, but it doesn't make you a Christian.
Mohrb said:"Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:Listen to this analogy.
You inherit a very valuable and rare oil painting by a well known artist; say Van Gough.
You then see an identical painting on an action web site up for sale.
You contact the auction house and they immediately set about having both paintings analyzed.
They discover one oil painting to be much older that the other...which painting do you want to keep?
The older one of the newer one?
X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true."
I thought his analogy was interesting. Simplistic, but then again, all analogies are simplistic compared to the Glory of God. The point that it makes (or made to me) was that you have the basic tenets of Christianity that had always been accepted, and Russell came along and re-wrote the foundation of the Church. I can't see how after ~1800 years of understanding His deity, you can reject Jesus as God based on a new initiative and fully adopt that of someone else.[/quote:1hwoj7js]
Hi mjjcb
Please by all means , tell us what makes a person a Christian.
So far, you have told us that JW's are not christians, but you claim to be a christian. So now, please lay out for us, what makes one a Christian.