2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnaswe are not talking of driving cars, we are talking of ordinances which qualify one to be an elder, and there are many mentioned in scripture, your analogy is therefore laughable at best! You may of course think what you like but we shall not be subject to your level of moral and ethical standards for we are not in the habit of submitting to the morality of mere mortals! You know nothing of either Christian teaching nor behaviour for clearly Christ upheld the word of God which you seek to diminish on the feeblest and most insidious of grounds, that you in fact know better, another laughable premise if ever there was one!
You tell me where in the bible driving of cars is permitted, and I will not criticize you or any other JWer to drive cars. (Love to play the game by your rules! 🙂 )
If you say you don't discriminate women in JW, and equal women with men, then whow me one female elder in JW and I change my opinon about discrimination within JW immediately.
Until the ot fall into insulting behaviour. I am not here to say that you are wrong, I am here to learn.
I suggest you try joining a ladies gymnasium and when they kick you out for realising that your boobs are man boobs, take them to court for discrimination! you can always cite equality as your basis!
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI just use the same type of argument that you do. No mention of driving cars, no mention of female elders means that driving cars are bad and female elders are bad. Samo, samo.
we are not talking of driving cars, we are talking of ordinances which qualify one to be an elder, and there are many mentioned in scripture, your analogy is therefore laughable at best! You may of course think what you like but we shall not be subject to your level of moral and ethical standards for we are not in the habit of submitting to the moral ...[text shortened]... e man boobs, take them to court for discrimination! you can always cite equality as your basis!
And also soo wrong. We live in modern times now. In a culture where women and men are to be valued alike. In the biblical times, women was worth less than man, but times changes. They can even be presidents and prime ministers, but not elders in JW. JW wants to live in the biblical times - fine. Comb your beard every day as the talibans do and be happy.
You haven't given me any argument that JW is *not* discriminative, neither towards homosexual people, nor toward women. So you've tought me something here. Learning is good.
Anyone else wants to correct robbie? Is JW a discriminative organization or not?
Here is one tidbit about JW's:
from a long piece I found on google, JW, religion or cult'
9. Salvation . JWs claim everlasting life is a reward for doing the will of God and carrying out one's dedication -- in other words, salvation is a reward for good works. (JWs are expected to spend five hours per week in door-to-door visitation and witnessing, are responsible for selling twelve subscriptions to The Watchtower magazine each month, and are responsible for conducting a "Bible study" each month in the homes of their converts.) According to JW theology, a person has one of three possible destinies. The Anointed (144,000) will be in heaven to reign with Jehovah God. The rest of the faithful Jehovah's Witnesses (not of the 144,000) will live forever on a paradise Earth. Both of these classifications are determined to a great extent on membership in the Watchtower organization as well as going door-to-door spreading the message of the Watchtower. Those people who are not members of the Watchtower organization will be destroyed by Jehovah God and cease to exist. There is no concept of eternal punishment or hell in Watchtower theology (Let God Be True, pp. 90-95, 289). They also believe that men will have a second chance, after death, to be saved.
So the gist of that is if you go door to door you will be part of the top tier. If you are just a member, no heaven for you.
Of course everyone else on earth dies and don't get the goodies of JW members.
Originally posted by FabianFnasat least he wasn't insulting--a most un-Christian action.
You tell me where in the bible driving of cars is permitted, and I will not criticize you or any other JWer to drive cars. (Love to play the game by your rules! 🙂 )
If you say you don't discriminate women in JW, and equal women with men, then whow me one female elder in JW and I change my opinon about discrimination within JW immediately.
Until the ...[text shortened]... ot fall into insulting behaviour. I am not here to say that you are wrong, I am here to learn.
Originally posted by sonhousewhat a pile of horse manure, salvation is dependent upon God, never the less, what would you expect from a site that cannot tell the difference between a religion and a cult, tut tut, its seems bozos will give credence to everything they read on the internet.
Here is one tidbit about JW's:
from a long piece I found on google, JW, religion or cult'
9. Salvation . JWs claim everlasting life is a reward for doing the will of God and carrying out one's dedication -- in other words, salvation is a reward for good works. (JWs are expected to spend five hours per week in door-to-door visitation and witnessing, ar ...[text shortened]... r you.
Of course everyone else on earth dies and don't get the goodies of JW members.
Originally posted by PinkFloydinsulting, the only insulting thing is Fabians posts, insulting to our intelligence! he needs to resort to what is not written in scripture rather than what is, for indeed, if he actually had the honesty to address what is, he would not have to resort to such baloney!
at least he wasn't insulting--a most un-Christian action.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou and vishva can take eachother hands. You're becoming more and more like him. Every opinion that dosn't agree with yours, you see insulting. And the only one that may insult others is you, because you know the Truth, others don't. Very Vedic, robbie, very Vedic.
insulting, the only insulting thing is Fabians posts, insulting to our intelligence! he needs to resort to what is not written in scripture rather than what is, for indeed, if he actually had the honesty to address what is, he would not have to resort to such baloney!
Originally posted by FabianFnasopinions, every one has them Fabian, i want to discuss principles! not whether you think that i am Vedic, but the principles which lead you to conclude that I am vedic! for even if i cannot agree with you, at least i will know WHY you came to your conclusion.
You and vishva can take eachother hands. You're becoming more and more like him. Every opinion that dosn't agree with yours, you see insulting. And the only one that may insult others is you, because you know the Truth, others don't. Very Vedic, robbie, very Vedic.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou air your opinions. You want to discuss principles? What principles? That discrimination of groups are the principal JW is based on?
opinions, every one has them Fabian, i want to discuss principles! not whether you think that i am Vedic, but the principles which lead you to conclude that I am vedic! for even if i cannot agree with you, at least i will know WHY you came to your conclusion.
If you handle principles as lightly as Visva does, then it is not principles, it's jsut opinions.
Vishvas opinion is that the world is 2.3 billion of years old, jet he says that there were human beings on our planet trillion of years ago. That is his opinions, not principles.
You and Vishva reason quite alike.
Originally posted by FabianFnaswell for goodness sake, do i need to spell it out, any principles would be a start!
You air your opinions. You want to discuss principles? What principles? That discrimination of groups are the principal JW is based on?
If you handle principles as lightly as Visva does, then it is not principles, it's jsut opinions.
Vishvas opinion is that the world is 2.3 billion of years old, jet he says that there were human beings on our planet ...[text shortened]... llion of years ago. That is his opinions, not principles.
You and Vishva reason quite alike.
Originally posted by FabianFnasno i mean principles
You write 'principals', yet you mean 'opinions'.
treat older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, wifes like our own bodies is based on a principle Fabian, that of mutual respect
let me ask you at this point, what do you think of that statement? the Biblical one that is?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIts a very limited statement and I would be offended if I were female.
no i mean principles
treat older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, wifes like our own bodies is based on a principle Fabian, that of mutual respect
let me ask you at this point, what do you think of that statement? the Biblical one that is?
Originally posted by karoly aczelRidiculous.
Its a very limited statement and I would be offended if I were female.
Have you ever even read the Bible?
If you were female you'd be offended by what? Respect?
I'm getting sick and tired of your knee jerk replies in this forum. Why don't you go learn something? 😕