DEBATE: Jehovah's Witnesses vs.Y'all (Note to mods inside)

[Spoonist]

Do you actually UNDERSTAND these laws, ...?

Yes. I have read the bible, the whole bible. Have you?

Exodus 32:16
The tablets were the work of God; the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets
Exodus 34
5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD . 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD , the LORD , the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."
Leviticus 1
1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting. He said, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any of you brings an offering to the LORD , bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock.
5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD , and then Aaron's sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 6
9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD .
Leviticus 26
14 " 'But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, 15 and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, 16 then I will do this to you: I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and drain away your life. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it.

All these are the commandments from someone who you describe as:

God is eternal, absolute, perfect, immortal etc.

You don't even want me to go into the laws of war...

Now let me just point out something for you:
You can't believe in Jesus being the son of god without believing in God. It's that simple.
If you believe in Jesus and wish to obey him you will also obey his father. It's that simple.
If you say that the old testament shouldn't be followed then you have refuted the father.
Now if you are still hoping that even though you have refuted the father his son will still forgive you then listen to his words:
Matthew 5
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 10
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
Matthew 19
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."


Now you will say that you don't have to listen to the whole bible...
But how do you know which parts that are true and which parts that are not?
As soon as you have said that a single sentence is false, then you have cast doubts on the whole bible.
What is left then?

[Australopithicus]

It seems you don't know s**t about Catholicism.

Well, spanky, it might surprise you to know this, but I'M NOT A CATHOLIC. NOTHING LIKE IT, AS A MATTER OF FACT. IN FACT, YOU FOOL, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HIS ENTIRE THREAD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT!!!

Now, some have put some good and valid comments here. Then there's you, who seems to have nothing better to do than flame/troll. Go take charm classes, because you're seriously LACKING in that department.

RC will be delt with here: no post-Reformation junk.

JUST WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT THE SUBJECT OF MY THREAD IS ABOUT?

*Retard alert sounds in England*

READ MY POST, DUMBASS: THIS IS ABOUT JW's, NOT RC's.

And now to put a useful quote to good debate from Faram:

"God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day
Genesis 1,14 - 1,18
1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Now how can this be?"

This is a GOOD point. Read it, spanky; you may learn something. But I can answer it on the same Biblical terms:

Previously, the expression 'Let light come to be' was used. The Hebrew word 'ohr, meaning light in a general sense. However, on the 4th day, the Hebrew word changes to ma'ohr, which means the source of the light. Rotheram, in his footnote on luminaries in the emphasised Bible, says "in vs. 3, 'ohr means 'light diffused'. Then he goes on to show that the word in vs. 14, ma'ohr, means something 'affording light'. On the 1st day, diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of light would not have been visible by an earthly observer had he/she been on Earth because of a cloud layer still enveloping the Earth. On the 4th day, this all changed.

[Faram]

Previously, the expression 'Let light come to be' was used. The Hebrew word 'ohr, meaning light in a general sense. However, on the 4th day, the Hebrew word changes to ma'ohr, which means the source of the light. Rotheram, in his footnote on luminaries in the emphasised Bible, says "in vs. 3, 'ohr means 'light diffused'. Then he goes on to show that the word in vs. 14, ma'ohr, means something 'affording light'. On the 1st day, diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of light would not have been visible by an earthly observer had he/she been on Earth because of a cloud layer still enveloping the Earth. On the 4th day, this all changed.

How can there be light without a source?

[Spoonist]

OH, and by the way my qoutes are from KJV.
What is the name of the JW one?

[Australopithicus]

Maybe I phrased this wrongly. I said that if there were organisms on Earth, they would not be able to SEE the source, NOT that it wouldn't exist. In vs. 14, the cloud layer lifts and the Sun actually becomes visible from Earth.

[Spoonist]

How can there be light without a source?

You are not even giving him a hard time.

The source of the light would be GOD, duh. Since he created it.

There are much better inconsistancies to discuss than light

[Australopithicus]

OH, and by the way my qoutes are from KJV.
What is the name of the JW one?

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Although we sometimes use others like the KJV if it helps us to get our point across. Did you know that the KJV once had the name 'Jehovah' in it at Psalms 83: 18? They've probably changed it now, but I have a KJV Bible in my room and it says it there. The same is true with my mothers' 1960's version of the Gideon Bible.

[Antie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cleopatra wasn't exactly a real Egyptian, was she? I thought she was more of Greek descent.

Actually, there were seven Cleopatras associated with ancient Egypt. The famous one who fooled around with Caesar was the seventh one. She was also the last queen of Egypt.

Alexander III of Macedon (A.K.A. Alexander the Great) had a huge empire that included parts of Asia, Africa (including Egypt), and Europe. When Alexander died, a Macedonian general by the name of Ptolemy eventually became the ruler of Egypt. He and his family practiced incest. There were fifteen Ptolemies in all, and Cleopatra VII was the daughter of Ptolemy XII.

It is true that we don't know the precise identity of her father's mother, but it seems that the woman was a mistress of Ptolemy IX. If the mistress were Macedonian Greek, then Cleopatra VII would have been full-blooded Greek. Even if she were not Macedonian Greek, it is not enough to say that she had to have been black.

One of her grandmothers is presumed to have been black? I don't know about that. The Ptolemies were rather xenophobic, and they would have looked down upon the conquered native Egyptian population.

Incidentally, the name Cleopatra is Greek. Cleo is related to cleos, which means glory, and pater means father. The whole name means "glory of her father."

Here's more information:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcleopatra.html

[CorSec]

The NT was written by disciples. Disciplices were close to Jesus. Jesus = God.

This is the largest myth perpetrated by the Church, that the stories and accounts found in the New Testament were written as they happened or soon thereafter.

Mark, the first of the gospels, was written in ~80 C.E.

The letters attributed to Paul were written between ~55 C.E. and ~85 C.E.

By contrast, the story of Paul's conversion in Acts wasn't written until ~120 C.E.

It is physically impossible for any of the eleven (or other hangers on) to have written the 'eyewitness' accounts found in the New Testament.

Jesus' claim to divinity is no more or less valid than the other god men to have preceeded him. See the stories of Attis of Phrygia, Buddha, Dionysus/Bacchus, Horus/Osiris of Egypt, Krishna of India, Mithra of Persia or Zoroaster and see the striking similarities for yourself.

[HemlockGrey]

I'll reply to Lennox, but first I need to smack down the JW.

Jesus isn't God, therefore his words would not be the same.

I dunno what bunk the Watchtower feeds you, but it is generally accepted that Jesus is the mortal incarnation of God.

That's the basic concept of the Holy Trinity, you dolt. It seems you don't know shit about Catholicism.

He's a JW. A puppet of his own little Papacy. Rather sad.

Lennox's reply in a short time.

[Australopithicus]

I'll reply to Lennox, but first I need to smack down the JW.

I'll smack you back. Works full circle, doesn't it?

I dunno what bunk the Watchtower feeds you, but it is generally accepted that Jesus is the mortal incarnation of God.

Not by us, Jesus or the Bible. Take this gem of wisdom from John Ch 10 vs. 34 - 36.

34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said:"You are Gods"?' 35 If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do you say to me whom the father dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme', because I said, 'I am God's son?"

Ooh. Look at that. Jesus says he's God's son. Hmm... Nope you must be right. He can't be trusted. *Heavy sarcasm*

He's a JW. A puppet of his own little Papacy. Rather sad.
Lennox's reply in a short time.

Hmm. We share no papal connections or doctrinal connections to Catholicism, Protestantism, or Orthodoxism. Their doctrines are twisted versions of the truth. And you don't know anything about us, it seems. Rather sad. And I hope the irony isn't lost on you, moron. Don't reply to Lennox's post. If I can beat you in your own arguments, then he'll screw you over ten times straight. But maybe that will teach you a lesson

[HemlockGrey]

Not by us, Jesus or the Bible. Take this gem of wisdom from John Ch 10 vs. 34 - 36.

34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said:"You are Gods"?' 35 If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do you say to me whom the father dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme', because I said, 'I am God's son ?"

Ooh. Look at that. Jesus says he's God's son. Hmm... Nope you must be right. He can't be trusted. *Heavy sarcasm*

Foolish puppet. He's the son, as in, the mortal incarnation.

Hmm. We share no papal connections or doctrinal connections to Catholicism, Protestantism, or Orthodoxism. Their doctrines are twisted versions of the truth. And you don't know anything about us, it seems. Rather sad. And I hope the irony isn't lost on you, moron. Don't reply to Lennox's post. If I can beat you in your own arguments, then he'll screw you over ten times straight. But maybe that will teach you a lesson

Never said that. The Watchtower is to you what the Papacy was/is to Catholics; a way of controlling the herd.

[Australopithicus]

Foolish puppet. He's the son, as in, the mortal incarnation.

Then I would like you to explain how a dead God can resurrect himself after being murdered. I would also ask you to explain why Jesus (If he is God, as you claim) always refers to himself in the 3rd person. I would also ask you to explain What happened at Jesus' baptism, with God stating that Jesus is his son, God glorifying his own name after Jesus asked him to, and why God (If he is Jesus, as you say) would not say 'It is to me that you must render sacred service' rather than his actual statement that 'It is to god you must render sacred service. I ask you these questions.

And I don't appreciate being called a puppet by someone who makes worse points than I, spewing a pointless rhetoric that is NOT backed up in the Bible at all.

Never said that. The Watchtower is to you what the Papacy was/is to Catholics; a way of controlling the herd.

Wrong. The Watchtower is a magazine. How can a magazine control the herd? If you are referring to the Watchtower Bible and Tract society inc, then you are once again wrong. They just provide the materials we need. The governing body only deal with the more worldly aspects of our being such as finances. This brings up a valid point. How much do you actually KNOW about us that is correct? I'd like to know that very much. Because you haven't exactly provided yourself as a shining example to the rest of us. I reiterate, don't argue withLennox. He'll still knock you flat. Give it up. You've LOST.

[HemlockGrey]

First point; seperate entities, same essence

Second point; au contraire, ye of little intellect(by the way, like your title)? JWs are sheep; they do not decide for themselves what they believe. Blood transfusions? Smoking? Excommunication? Ring a bell?

[Justforfun000]

Now I can understand why Mike exited from this "debate". You people are wasting your time. The problem here is that this character is convinced that the Bible is authoritative. To him it supersedes any and all scientific (translate-Reality) evidence and observation we have.

Until you can get him around to first realizing that using appeals to authority (i.e. The Bible) is a totally worthless stance when it comes to claiming evidence for your position, you are not going to get anywhere.

To sum this up, an appropriate quote would be "A closed mind can only be opened from within".

My little JW, I doubt very much I can reach you with words because you don't seem to understand the true concept of logic or differentation between fact and fiction.

Whether ANY of the Bible is true or not is irrelevant in itself as an arguing point. You cannot claim it IS true unless you have OBJECTIVE evidence to back it up. The best you can say is "I believe". You can believe what you want, but you cannot win an argument with it. it's impossible.

People are convinced by facts. The Bible stated quite clearly that the Sun revolved around the Earth. This was OBVIOUSLY proven to be completely backwards. If I took you and a thousand people up in a spaceship and showed you with measurements and observation in front of your own eyes the actual events, do you think that those people are not going to consider that FIRST HAND evidence to be convincing? Is it logical to claim that your book of beliefs is still superior in the assertion that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

The problem here is that you are butting heads with Science. Some things are NOT in the realm of Science, and therefore are open to speculation, but when you muck around in its bailiwick then you better expect to realize that it is supreme in it's truth up to what we can VERIFY.

Either this or you are entertaining solipsism, and then any debate is pointless as that view would mean absolutely nothing can be trusted to be objective truth.

Let me put this is extremely simple terms.

1) Science has already postulated AND proved the theory of Evolution. it is a FACT. Deal with it. Anything contrary to this theory is not even CLOSE to being accepted or even entertained as a serious contender for a superior point of view.

2) Religous creeds have many different interpretations and ideas of reality, God, man and the unseen world. But NONE of them are able to be verified by our current objective science. This does not mean they are absolutely wrong, but they ARE absolutely unproven. However if they postulate anything in direct opposition to what we DO know is truth by the scientific method, then we know that the religious dogma is wrong in that instance. It is foolish to say that the world and universe that "God" created is not logical, measurable or capable of being understood or validated by our own senses. To do so from YOUR point of view, would make God look like an idiot. Not to mention unthinkably cruel and deceiving.

This picking apart different quotes from the Bible...Oh sorry, the Jehovah Witnesses version of the Bible I should hasten to add...is nothing but a huge red herring. You aren't even proving the essence of your claim. What is that claim? That the Bible is in any way valid.

PROVE IT

It's not done by "I believe", it's done by example and reference to objective proof. if you want to stay irrational and argue from a completely unsupported viewpoint, then that's your prerogative, but to be quite honest, you look like a total fool.

[HemlockGrey]

Justforfun, are you referring to me, or Austra?

Reply coming Sunday; Lennox should be back then.

[Justforfun000]

I'm referring to the one with the "Fundamentalist Moron" title. I believe it is Austro

Are you JW too? Is that where the mix-up is?

[Spoonist]

->JFF

Personaly I find it easier to argue with people on the www who take the bible literally. That way you have an actual source to debate from.

It's harder to argue with people who claim that they are christians but that they have an interpretational right on the bible. (This I want, this I don't want).

->Australopithicus & Cyril

So let's see if you really are that different:

How should I live my life so that I can join the kindom of heaven when armaggedon comes?

[HemlockGrey]

Are you JW too? Is that where the mix-up is?

Hell no. I didn't see the part where you address him as 'my little JW'

How should I live my life so that I can join the kindom of heaven when armaggedon comes

Armaggedon is a bit iffy; I don't particularly trust Revelations; besides, you don't have to wait for Armageddon, if it happens; you go to heaven directly when you die. Personally, tho?

Accept Jesus; acknowledge that he died for humanity. Live the way he asked people too; 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone', be humble, turn the other cheek, etc. etc. Realize that you are not without sin, that no man or woman is without sin, and pray for God's forgiveness. He will grant it to you.

However, rituals such as baptism are unnecessary; the crazy JW bans on smoking and blood tranfusion are not necessary; do not renouce your faith, and do not allow anyone to dictate your faith to you.

[Utsanomiko]

Accept Jesus; acknowledge that he died for humanity.

May I ask what that means, specifically? I've asked probably 15-20 different people/sources over the years, and they've all failed to provide a straight/clear answer, other than "um, hold on... (flip through convinently available scripture) he, err, died... so we could, uhh... be without sin? I haven't really thought about it."

And another unanswered one I should post before I forget; If we're 'made in God's image', then why are we all so funny looking? Seems pretty cruel, if you ask me. We are a hell of a lot more akwardly built, compared to the rest of 'God's creatures' (excluding mollusks and crustaceans, who are just the most pathetic creatures anyone could be cruel enough to design)? Just thought I'd ask.

[Iceberg]

Although we sometimes use others like the KJV if it helps us to get our point across. Did you know that the KJV once had the name 'Jehovah' in it at Psalms 83: 18? They've probably changed it now, but I have a KJV Bible in my room and it says it there. The same is true with my mothers' 1960's version of the Gideon Bible.

"Jehovah" was nothing more and nothing less than an improper Anglicization of the Tetragrammation (YHWH) of the Name of the Lord. Historical studies have conclusively proven this.

So your point is?

[Australopithicus]

How should I live my life so that I can join the kindom of heaven when armaggedon comes?

I am afraid that however you live your life, you will never get into heaven. And neither will I. Only 144,000 people will actually enter the ruling class of humans who will rule alongside Jesus over the rest of humanity. All you can hope for is that you survive what most people call 'Armageddon' (which is actually a battle between Michael the arkangel AKA Jesus and Satan. Jesus won in 1914, and Satan was thrown out of heaven down to Earth), and live as a perfect human being in a paradise Earth for 100 years until Satan is given his last chance to tempt us into following him. Those that do will be destroyed, and those that do not will live for all eternity in paradise as perfect humans. Ruled over by 144,000 handpicked special humans who rule in heaven with God and Jesus. I am afraid that the doctrine about the immortal soul is nothing but jibberish presented by Christendom. They have mistranslated Revelation and some other parts of the Bible completely, and have also missed the parts which are symbolic rather than literal.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Uh... okay.

And you serriously believe that?

Why be part of a religion that says you're already Damned? Doesn't that kinda defeat the point?

And since when was Christ the same person as the Archangel Michael?



(Oh, wait. That's right. JW isn't a real religion. It's just a cult. You don't even believe in the Holy Trinity. Wake up and recognise the authority of Catholisim.)

[Spoonist]

JW isn't a real religion. It's just a cult.

Actually, JW is both a religion and a cult. Your point being? Or where you just trying to be tough?

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: 'k&lt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
- - -
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

[Spoonist]

Why be part of a religion that says you're already Damned? Doesn't that kinda defeat the point?

It seems that you misunderstood what he is saying. If you have read revelations his post is perfectly clear.

Let's look at his post again.

144,000 people will actually enter the ruling class of humans who will rule alongside Jesus over the rest of humanity.

This comes from:
Revelation 14 (KJV I couldn't find the JW bible on the internet...)
1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Those that do will be destroyed, and those that do not will live for all eternity in paradise as perfect humans.

Revelation 21
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

->SpankTheDolphin
This means that there are 144000 'extra special' people who will rule with the lamb. For the rest of us, the trials of the final days will see if we are righteous or not.

Did that make it clearer?

They have mistranslated Revelation and some other parts of the Bible completely, and have also missed the parts which are symbolic rather than literal.

->Australopithicus
This is what I have a problem with. Some parts should be taken at literal value, some parts are only symbolic.
Who decides which is which?
Because as it is revealed in revelations, you will be judged on the final day, so now the question is, by which rules?
Right now there are at least 8 mayor denominations of Christians, all of which claim to have the one and only truth.
All of the denominations (except for the mormons) base their views from different interpretations of the Bible.

I think that this speaks volumes. Or should I say that it speaks bibles...