I am a JW, why should I consider becoming a C

[Mohrb]

i brought up homosexuality as that is so strong that one cant just change with the lord's intervention.

With God's intervention, anything is possible. You're welcome to your opinion on sexuality. However, I did minor in sociology in college, and I'm of the opinion that attraction is learned via the environment... people aren't "born" sexually attracted to any specific trait, they learn what they're attracted to based on their personal life experiences. This isn't to suggest that you can actively "control" what you're attracted to any more than you can "control" your life experiences. Sometimes, life happens like it or not. But, I believe it is something that people can subconsciously direct. Of course, this is a topic for another thread. Regardless of what we personally believe about "what causes sexuality" ... I believe the bible doesn't approve of it, whether I understand/agree or not.

you dont seem to accept the power of the lord to change.

God can help any situation if the person asking does so with an honest heart. "Asking" for help changing and "being willing to take part in the change" are unfortunately not always together. Many people may pray that God helps them be more financially responsible... and I believe God can offer very significant help. Unfortunately, people usually don't accept the help they've asked for.

if you wish to debate what light is then i suggest you ask mr.barbarian or the physicist. they will gladly answer you. and they would be correct on what they say.

In physics, everything is theoretical. People can completely disagree, yet both be just as "right" as the other ones. Light is something I've studied in detail, and I'm aware of the accepted theory. I understand it just fine. I just don't accept that a photon has the same relative velocity to a second photon traveling in the same direction AND a third photon traveling in the opposite direction at the same time. I disagree that two photons leaving a source simultaneously and arriving at a location a certain distance away simultaneously are BOTH traveling at 186,000 miles per second faster than the other one.

eherm... sorry. I'll stop now.

for light is a particle that has energy and and a wavelength. if it didn't how does the the light create electrcity in solar cells? the wavelengths can be maniuplated to form lasers and masers(microwave beam.) interesting.

1: Light doesn't "create electricity" ... the electricity's already there (minor technicality... electrons themselves vs. EMF). 2: Light creates an electric pressure differential due to heat. 3: Wavelength and frequency aren't necessarily the same thing. 4: I agreed that light has both wave and particle characteristics. Think of the ocean... it's physically water... but there can be waves in it (referring to "water" waves, not sound/radio waves in the water). Is the ocean a trinity? ... part wave, part water, part energy (energy can be extracted from ocean waves)? Or is "waving" simply a property of water?

(The above is rhetorical).

 

[jasoncran]

convert into electricity. that is the proper word, photovoltaic cells. that is what i should have said.

but that i will leave alone.

i dont believe people were born gay, but i am agianst. i asked that as most people who try to change without the lords intervention often fail. i was bi, and its gone. i just repented and i stopped, others struggled and still struggle to stop. but many do stop. you dont have to act on that desire. you can change it if you ask the lord.

 

[Mohrb]

Do the Jehovah Witnesses worship Christ?
And when I say worship that's what I mean. Worship.

As our "Lord/Ruler" yes. As "almighty God," No.

I'm aware of the verse, you're thinking of by asking that question, and I could equally point out Matthew 4:10 "Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' " (NIV)
Notice, this is a quotation of Deuteronomy 5:9, which specifically uses the tetragrammeton, the name of the Father.

Also, I would like to clarify my above post about the use of the NWT. It can be used in this specific forum, but is not considered a Christian translation.

Gotcha. That makes sense. So, I wouldn't "get in trouble" if I cited a scripture, and remembered it as it was worded in the NWT as opposed to a different translation... it just wouldn't be officially recognized?

 

[jasoncran]

you can use that name jehovah here, it is allowed , some use it here.

 

[Nick]

Yes, the NWT can be used here, but as the forum rules say it is not considered a Christian translation. Just keep that in mind. But definately cite what version you are using, especially if it is the NWT.

For the record, I use the NIV, unless otherwise stated.

 

[jasoncran]

one last thing for me. i must compliment you on this, unlike the jw that i have been around when i was a kid, you dont come around as condendescing or judgemental.

 

[Nick]

one last thing for me. i must compliment you on this, unlike the jw that i have been around when i was a kid, you dont come around as condendescing or judgemental.

I have noticed that too. Thankyou for that.

 

[Mohrb]

Whatever denomination I am doesn't matter, as it wouldn't matter if I was talking to a Muslim. You're either on one side or another - there's no fence sitting, if you know what I mean.

Indeed. However, it's just best not to define faiths you disagree with. Neither of us being Buddhist, it would be unwise for a non-Buddhist to start telling people how Buddhists are so mislead by worshiping Buddha as their God. Especially a Buddhist may come in and say "actually, we don't believe any Buddhas were "God"... but rather people who reached enlightenment and can provide wisdom to follow so that we may reach enlightenment as well." ... now, if we "correct them" by siting a book written by people who obviously didn't understand Buddhism... see how that's not very reasonable?

Likewise, you informing me about how "JWs believe that you earn faiths by works" because some "guide to cults" says so... Sorry, but that just plain isn't true. Your "experts" obviously didn't actually talk to any JWs. It's no more valid than if I were to insult your denomination by saying that you "worship crosses." If you said "we don't 'worship' the cross itself" and i were to correct you because I read somewhere that people of your denomination "worshiped crosses"... how useful would that be?

You're welcome to say that "JWs deny the fact of the trinity" ... just as I can say that "trinitarians deny the fact that there is only one God, the Father." Without scripture backing up the statements, no one will make any progress.

Basically, they deny the trinity,

So did Jesus. Read John 14:28 and 17:3 for a couple absolutely crystal clear examples.

John 17:3 I don't see fits into a trinity argument.

Jesus praying to his Father "And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent." (good news translation)
Notice that he said the Father is the only true God... He said "you" not "we." And, to avoid confusion he specified himself as the one that the True God sent... specifying that he was not the one that sent himself.

BTW, I don't really wanting this to turn into a trinity debate. That is both for another thread and for another forum - apologetics & theology.

Any time you're up for it, I'll gladly address this topic.

Jesus did not pay the penalty for sins and you have to work for salvaiton - it is not given as a gift by God.

Not even close to what JWs believe at all.

Well then please explain what the JW's believe on this point.

As I've stated earlier in this thread, JWs believe that Jesus "offers life's water free" ... i.e. the gift of salvation is a free gift, for any who would accept it. We believe in the concept of "grace" exactly as most Christianity presents it, we simply tend to use the term "Undeserved Kindness." Forgiveness isn't something we can, or would attempt to "earn." It's offered freely.

However, we believe faith should be acted upon (Read Matthew 25). Doing our best to live by Jesus' instructions, avidly studying the bible, etc. are all simply out of love for God. It's not a burden that we bear in order to "earn salvation." We love God simply because we love God.

For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome,

... most people are shocked that we don't believe in Hell... they ask "if there's no threat of Hell, what's the point doing good if there's no punishment for failing?" ... because we don't serve God to save our own skins or to earn ourselves anything. His commandments aren't a burden... they're just the way we are. (ideally. Of course, people are sinful and fall short.)

It was not meant as an insult - it was a statement of conclusion that I and many others have come to after examining the JW beliefs.

If I said "it's simply a fact that (insert your denomination here) are not Christian because you believe in 3 gods and worship crosses" ... would you take no offense to it?

Muslims don't claim to follow the bible. In fact, they'd be happy about it, because most muslims believe that all Christians are polytheists (trinitarians), and Muslims are strictcly monotheist. If you told a Mormon that they weren't Christian, they would be insulted because they believe themselves to be following Christ. Both you and I can agree that we disagree with the Mormons. However, Mormons would be just as hurt and insulted as if someone told you that your denomination was not Christian. (Mormons are more difficult to pin down. The front of the book of mormon advocates the trinity, yet the book of mormon doesn't.) Although mormons would be insulted by people telling them they're not Christian, they wouldn't be insulted by people suggesting that they have their own extra-biblical book. They find it legitimate, you and I do not think it's legitimate.

Unlike both Mormons and Muslims, JWs do not have additions to the bible. We follow the bible to the best of our ability. Suggesting that we have "our own book" (by comparing the NWT to the book of mormon) is very offensive and closed-minded. FYI.

 

[Nick]

Mohrb, I seriously doubt whether we're going to get anywhere. We're both very set on our ideas, and I don't think it's helpful to just have the same arguments coming back and forth without leading anywhere.

I'm thinking the main reason I dsagree so strongly with the JW belief is mostly about their denial of the trinity. Now the trinity is a complex thing to debate, and I don't have an extremely sound knowledge of the Bible as I would like to (I am only 17), but I try to gain a better knowledge all the time. If you want to read more about the trinity, I would advise you to start a topic on it in Apoligetics & Theology. But there is an excellent 1-on-1 debate topic going on about the trinity here: viewtopic.php?f=68&t=43513. It's a good read.

Can you understand my view though? As I believe that the Bible clearly teaches the existance of the trinity (notice that the trinity is one godhead but in three distinct persona/forms), so can you understand why I feel that the JW's are not Christians? Becasue if Jesus is not the son of God and is actually Michael the archangel, then that would not make HIs death sufficient to pay the penalty for our sins. And that is what I understand of JW doctrine.

 

[Mohrb]

one last thing for me. i must compliment you on this, unlike the jw that i have been around when i was a kid, you dont come around as condendescing or judgemental.

thanks. There are judgmental, condescending people in any group, though. And ones that aren't, of course.

I'm thinking the main reason I dsagree so strongly with the JW belief is mostly about their denial of the trinity. Now the trinity is a complex thing to debate, and I don't have an extremely sound knowledge of the Bible as I would like to (I am only 17), but I try to gain a better knowledge all the time.

There are complex and simple ways to view it. But, I'll respect that you don't want to debate the topic here, at this time. However, until you've fully considered our reasoning, it would certainly be nice if you showed JWs enough respect to not impugn our faith on the basis of something I doubt you've taken the time to really look in to objectively. However, one thing I am very impressed with is the last part of the above statement! Understanding the limitations of one's knowledge is something most people are far too cowardly to do. Most people are CERTAIN that their understanding is absolute and complete... that they're "done learning" ... which is the mark of a very foolish person. People like us, who can admit that we're still learning are more rare than we should be. Realistically, more research is better... but I plan on spending the rest of this life learning about God's will... and if I make it to 100 years old, I never plan on being "done" drawing closer to God. And, then in his kingdom, I hope to learn more about his will for an eternity.... if I manage to run out of questions in the first billion years, I'll be ashamed of myself.

Can you understand my view though? As I believe that the Bible clearly teaches the existance of the trinity (notice that the trinity is one godhead but in three distinct persona/forms), so can you understand why I feel that the JW's are not Christians? Becasue if Jesus is not the son of God and is actually Michael the archangel, then that would not make HIs death sufficient to pay the penalty for our sins. And that is what I understand of JW doctrine.

I understand that you are trinitarian, and it's a core doctrine for you. And, I agree that JWs are not trinitarian. Therefore, we disagree on a very core doctrine. However, which one of us has the right to say that the other one isn't Christian for disagreeing with us? I see Jesus say that the Father is the 'only' True God... and I interpret that to mean that the father alone is the only true God. Obviously you have a different interpretation of what Jesus said, but we're both doing our best to follow Jesus' teaching. It's not the place of either of us to call the other one "Not Christian."

One question I would like to ask you, though... is, why would Christ's death be invalid if he were anyone but God himself? Where in the bible does it say that to pay for Adam's sin (and all subsequent sin) that God himself must die? Read Romans 5:12-17. ... The sacrifice needed only be equal to Adam... One perfect life transgressed, therefore one perfect life had to pay for that transgression. God could have created a new human to be the sacrifice... nothing more than human... as long as this human was sacrificed sinless, that would be sufficient. God went far above and beyond by sending his own son, rather than just making a new man to be sacrificed.

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his Son... and due to the willingness to make this sacrifice, God himself sacrificed his own Son for us. How is it meaningless if it's not the almighty himself?

But, consider this: The almighty, by definition is infinite and incapable of death. We agree? If Jesus died, he could not have been infinite when he died (on the basis that he was capable of death). But, if you believe Jesus became infinite again... how can someone go from infinite to finite, then back to infinite?

 

[jasoncran]

most men accoriding to josephus died during the scouring by the cat of nine tails, jesus didnt. that alone should tell that he was more then a man. would you not defend yourself if you are accused? Does it not say that he laid aside his diety to become a man. he humbled himself.

 

[Mysteryman]

most men accoriding to josephus died during the scouring by the cat of nine tails, jesus didnt. that alone should tell that he was more then a man. would you not defend yourself if you are accused? Does it not say that he laid aside his diety to become a man. he humbled himself.

I don't recall Jesus mentioning that he laid aside his diety to become a man. Can you refresh my memory on this one ?

 

[Mike]

I understand that you are trinitarian, and it's a core doctrine for you. And, I agree that JWs are not trinitarian. Therefore, we disagree on a very core doctrine. However, which one of us has the right to say that the other one isn't Christian for disagreeing with us? I see Jesus say that the Father is the 'only' True God... and I interpret that to mean that the father alone is the only true God. Obviously you have a different interpretation of what Jesus said, but we're both doing our best to follow Jesus' teaching. It's not the place of either of us to call the other one "Not Christian."

We believe in a different nature of God, correct? Assuming so, where is that line? Where does that line have to be in order for us to consider our faiths different enough to be, well, different? We might have different ideas for where that line has to be to say we are not similar enough to be thought of as all Christians. I've posed that JW's do a pretty good job of separating themselves. But then you say, "However, which one of us has the right to say that the other one isn't Christian for disagreeing with us?" Well, the Christian Church was established long before Russell came along in the 1870's. That said, I would say that we could lay claim to the name "Christianity". Certainly JW's couldn't take over and claim it for themselves. I realize you aren't saying this. You say we are all Christians. I draw the line between our beliefs and would have reason to say we reserve the name for ourselves.

 

[happyjoy]

I draw the line between our beliefs and would have reason to say we reserve the name for ourselves.

Your grammar is wrong.

You meant to say. I draw a line between our beliefs, and have reason to say I reserve the name of Christian for myself.

 

[Rick W]

Do the Jehovah Witnesses worship Christ?
And when I say worship that's what I mean. Worship.

As our "Lord/Ruler" yes. As "almighty God," No.

As deity without beginning or end?

 

[Mike]

I draw the line between our beliefs and would have reason to say we reserve the name for ourselves.

Your grammar is wrong.

You meant to say. I draw a line between our beliefs, and have reason to say I reserve the name of Christian for myself.

Kinda "ticky-tac", but I can't resist. I believe mine is correct, and yours is wrong. Your comma is not appropriate as you do not have two complete sentences joined by a conjunction. If you were to continue ", and I have reason to...", then you have two sentences joined by a conjunction, and a comma is required. Your comma makes this a grammatically incorrect sentence.

This was fun. Now, totopic

 

[happyjoy]

I draw the line between our beliefs and would have reason to say we reserve the name for ourselves.

Your grammar is wrong.

You meant to say. I draw a line between our beliefs, and have reason to say I reserve the name of Christian for myself.

Kinda "ticky-tac", but I can't resist. I believe mine is correct, and yours is wrong. Your comma is not appropriate as you do not have two complete sentences joined by a conjunction. If you were to continue ", and I have reason to...", then you have two sentences joined by a conjunction, and a comma is required. Your comma makes this a grammatically incorrect sentence.

This was fun. Now, totopic

If completely avoiding the point, and still being wrong is fun then I am glad you enjoyed yourself.

 

[jasoncran]

lol, thanks rick that is what they believe. he jesus is the firstfruit, thus the Alpha and the Omega, the latter has no end. he was created in the beggining.

unlike what we believe.

unless i am mistaken. I do recall that the messiah was the firstfruit in the resurrection and also in creation as the son. then he created all the other things, the angels first then the earth and heavens and so on and so forth.

i had to really think hard on that stuff.

 

[westtexas]

John 1:1--In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God--(Greek Interlinear Bible)
John 1:1--In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god--(NWT)

It is a big deal. Note, that ho logos was with "Ton theon" (with a definite article, in the accusitive)... and notice that "theos" (no definite article, nominative predicate) was ho logos.

Mohrb, I need you to explain something to me.Above you see the interlinear translation that I own as well as the NWT translation and then your explanation of ho logos.

En arche en ho logos
In beginning was the Word

Kai ho logos, en pros ton theon
and the Word was toward the God

Kai theos en ho logos
and God was the Word----------Kingdom Interlinear Translation 1985 edition

You have said you would accept the greek interpretation over other translations. Your own Kingdom literature does not translate the Greek to read--a god. Can you please explain why the NWT is translated this way and the Kingdom Interlinear is not?
Westtexas

 

[Nick]

one last thing for me. i must compliment you on this, unlike the jw that i have been around when i was a kid, you dont come around as condendescing or judgemental.

thanks. There are judgmental, condescending people in any group, though. And ones that aren't, of course.

Of course. Just look at Muslim terrorists, or that Baptist church that says "God hates fags".

I'm thinking the main reason I dsagree so strongly with the JW belief is mostly about their denial of the trinity. Now the trinity is a complex thing to debate, and I don't have an extremely sound knowledge of the Bible as I would like to (I am only 17), but I try to gain a better knowledge all the time.

There are complex and simple ways to view it. But, I'll respect that you don't want to debate the topic here, at this time. However, until you've fully considered our reasoning, it would certainly be nice if you showed JWs enough respect to not impugn our faith on the basis of something I doubt you've taken the time to really look in to objectively. However, one thing I am very impressed with is the last part of the above statement! Understanding the limitations of one's knowledge is something most people are far too cowardly to do. Most people are CERTAIN that their understanding is absolute and complete... that they're "done learning" ... which is the mark of a very foolish person. People like us, who can admit that we're still learning are more rare than we should be. Realistically, more research is better... but I plan on spending the rest of this life learning about God's will... and if I make it to 100 years old, I never plan on being "done" drawing closer to God. And, then in his kingdom, I hope to learn more about his will for an eternity.... if I manage to run out of questions in the first billion years, I'll be ashamed of myself.

As someone who is extemely interested in history, I have come to know that there is no such thing as an objective position (unless it is the Word of God, but it can be subjectively interpreted by us).
Thank you for your compliment. It reminded me of a verse in Proverbs about always seeking God and learning about Him or something like that, but I can't remember exactly.
Perhaps I should have shown more respect towards you and JW's in general, and I'm sorry that I wasn't as understanding as I usually am.

Can you understand my view though? As I believe that the Bible clearly teaches the existance of the trinity (notice that the trinity is one godhead but in three distinct persona/forms), so can you understand why I feel that the JW's are not Christians? Becasue if Jesus is not the son of God and is actually Michael the archangel, then that would not make HIs death sufficient to pay the penalty for our sins. And that is what I understand of JW doctrine.

I understand that you are trinitarian, and it's a core doctrine for you. And, I agree that JWs are not trinitarian. Therefore, we disagree on a very core doctrine. However, which one of us has the right to say that the other one isn't Christian for disagreeing with us? I see Jesus say that the Father is the 'only' True God... and I interpret that to mean that the father alone is the only true God. Obviously you have a different interpretation of what Jesus said, but we're both doing our best to follow Jesus' teaching. It's not the place of either of us to call the other one "Not Christian."
One question I would like to ask you, though... is, why would Christ's death be invalid if he were anyone but God himself? Where in the bible does it say that to pay for Adam's sin (and all subsequent sin) that God himself must die? Read Romans 5:12-17. ... The sacrifice needed only be equal to Adam... One perfect life transgressed, therefore one perfect life had to pay for that transgression. God could have created a new human to be the sacrifice... nothing more than human... as long as this human was sacrificed sinless, that would be sufficient. God went far above and beyond by sending his own son, rather than just making a new man to be sacrificed.

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his Son... and due to the willingness to make this sacrifice, God himself sacrificed his own Son for us. How is it meaningless if it's not the almighty himself?

But, consider this: The almighty, by definition is infinite and incapable of death. We agree? If Jesus died, he could not have been infinite when he died (on the basis that he was capable of death). But, if you believe Jesus became infinite again... how can someone go from infinite to finite, then back to infinite?

See this is where it gets tricky. And I admit I don’t really have many of the answers. But what I was getting at is that if I believe that a core doctrine of a Christian is that they believe in the trinity, then I’m sure you can understand why I thought JW’s were not Christians. Notice I said ‘thought’ not ‘think’. To be honest, I’m just not sure at the moment. I need to do a lot more thinking about this. It is definitely not as straightforward not Christian as Mormonism is, that’s for sure.
OK, lets stick to the argument that Jesus ‘was God (a Trinitarian belief), but when He was on earth as jesus, consider this: He was both fully man AND fully God. If one is man, then they are capable of death - Jesus was God in the flesh. But, He had the power to do miracles, such as healing the sick, and obviously rise from the dead. It was only that He was God’s son, and I believe part of the trinity Godhead that He could possibly live a sinless like so that our sins may be paid for.
That is how I interpret it at this time. But I did say that I wouldn’t want to debate the trinity right now, so perhaps we could leave at least that part for now.

You also make a good point: which one of us has the right to accuse the other of not being a Christian? Because unlike Muslims or Hindus, JW’s use the Bible (perhaps an incorrect translation, but still the Bible) and so it comes down more to accusing another’s interpretation of the Bible to be inferior to your own. But with Muslims and Hindus, it is more obvious. I guess it comes down to the often hazy line of judgmental or rebuking and simply stating the facts. And I feel rebuked about this point, and I want to thank you. I need to study this more, and I encourage you to do so as well.