03 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidIts a waste of time.
That's why if I was a skeptic who wanted to disprove Christianity, I wouldn't waste my time attacking all the silly stuff, I'd go straight to the core and attack the validity of the resurrection.
The resurrection, if it happened, would have had to have been a miracle (ie exception to the laws of physics/biology/chemistry etc) and thus cannot be attacked on the basis to scientific evidence.
If you do not believe it happened, the only way you can be convinced it did, is if you first accept the existence of a miracle working God.
If you do believe it happened, no scientific evidence would convince you otherwise, because you do not believe it was an event governed by science.
Of course many Christians cant seem to see this dilemma and instead try to argue that there is good documentary evidence that it happened which is of course nonsensical. It will always be the case that the vast body of documentary evidence confirming the laws of science trump any documentary evidence of a violation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
03 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59The actual word 'Christian' is in the Bible so it is not a man-made word as you claim.
No Christ does not get to decide on who is a Christian and who is not ... neither does doward.
Christian is a man-made word and its definition is down to Man. (NOT a man)
Although definitions will subtley differ nobody has shown a bona fide definition which would not include JWs.
A Christian is a follower of Christ. Everytime Christ said 'follow me' and people obeyed, he created Christians. When Paul was sent to preach to the Gentiles he created dozens of Christian Churches. So what Paul preached represented the definition of a Christian.
Maybe you atheists should resist the temptation to argue about the contents of the Bible with those who actually read the Bible, just as I resist the temptation to argue with atheists about their beliefs.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999All the words in the bible are man-made (unless you are arguing that a non-existant god invented - and continues to improve - the English language?)
The actual word 'Christian' is in the Bible so it is not a man-made word as you claim.
A Christian is a follower of Christ. Everytime Christ said 'follow me' and people obeyed, he created Christians. When Paul was sent to preach to the Gentiles he created dozens of Christian Churches. So what Paul preached represented the definition of a Christian.
May ...[text shortened]... read the Bible, just as I resist the temptation to argue with atheists about their beliefs.
But we agree a Christian is a follower of Christ - that seems to be a good working definition. The way that the person chooses to follow Christ is irrelevant to the definition.
An atheist or non-denominational christian is probably best placed to arbitrate a definition of Christian wouldn't you say? And that has nothing to do with arguing about religius beliefs ... we are arguing about semantics.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999Which Bible would that be? There is either no such thing as 'the Bible' or there are many many different versions in different languages. I can assure you that not all of the existent versions contain the word 'Christian'. After all, not all of them use the Roman alphabet.
The actual word 'Christian' is in the Bible so it is not a man-made word as you claim.
03 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAccording to Strongs Concordance, the original Greek Bible used the following
Which Bible would that be? There is either no such thing as 'the Bible' or there are many many different versions in different languages. I can assure you that not all of the existent versions contain the word 'Christian'. After all, not all of them use the Roman alphabet.
Christianos
khris-tee-an-os'
a Christian, that is, follower of Christ: - Christian.
The word occurs 3 times.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59Christians believe that the Bible was inspired by God.
All the words in the bible are man-made (unless you are arguing that a non-existant god invented - and continues to improve - the English language?)
But we agree a Christian is a follower of Christ - that seems to be a good working definition. The way that the person chooses to follow Christ is irrelevant to the definition.
An atheist or non-denomin ...[text shortened]... that has nothing to do with arguing about religius beliefs ... we are arguing about semantics.
The way a person is supposed to follow Christ was laid down by Christ himself and later by Paul and the apostles. Whether or not he is correct is for Christ to judge.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by menace71I'm not bashing the USA but all governments on this planet are controlled by Satan.
Dude if you don't like it move!!!!!
Sick of people bashing the USA but hiding behind it's benefits
Manny
In YOUR bible did Satan not offer them to Jesus when trying to tempt him? If they weren't his to offer then that would not have happened.
Does YOUR Bible not say that "the whole world is in the power of the wicked one"?
You guys do not take this fact seriously in YOUR bible. This is not the JW's thought but it's in YOUR bible.
If your not going to take this seriously then what good is the rest of the bible to you?
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by galveston75If you take that seriously/literally then the JWs are also in the power of the wicked one.
I'm not bashing the USA but all governments on this planet are controlled by Satan.
In YOUR bible did Satan not offer them to Jesus when trying to tempt him? If they weren't his to offer then that would not have happened.
Does YOUR Bible not say that "the whole world is in the power of the wicked one"?
You guys do not take this fact seriously in ...[text shortened]...
If your not going to take this seriously then what good is the rest of the bible to you?
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999Not true at all as your forgetting God. He has at times had a people that he protected such as the Isrealites but in turn would punish them if they went out into the world and had dealings with it that he didn't approve of.
If you take that seriously/literally then the JWs are also in the power of the wicked one.
So yes if we allow ourselves to go beyond what God allows us to do as we do live in this world and and we have to enteract in it daily, then that's when problems arise. But if we do just as Jesus said, "pay Ceasers things to Ceaser" then we are following what the Bible says.
Then it's with constant study of the bible and keeping this in mind that the WHOLE world is under satan's power and one begins to see what we should not get involved in such as it's military. This is just one pawn of Satan.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is extraordinary proof. There is still the empty tomb in Jerusalem.
Its a waste of time.
The resurrection, if it happened, would have had to have been a miracle (ie exception to the laws of physics/biology/chemistry etc) and thus cannot be attacked on the basis to scientific evidence.
If you do not believe it happened, the only way you can be convinced it did, is if you first accept the existence of a miracle working Go ...[text shortened]... trump any documentary evidence of a violation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
There is the Shroud of Turin and the lesser known Sudarium, the cloth
used to cover His face.
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59Anyone that is not a follower of Christ is a follower of Satan. There in no
All the words in the bible are man-made (unless you are arguing that a non-existant god invented - and continues to improve - the English language?)
But we agree a Christian is a follower of Christ - that seems to be a good working definition. The way that the person chooses to follow Christ is irrelevant to the definition.
An atheist or non-denomin ...[text shortened]... that has nothing to do with arguing about religius beliefs ... we are arguing about semantics.
neutral position. BELIEVE IT OR NOT !
03 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsBut yet you would follow satan's governments into war?
Anyone that is not a follower of Christ is a follower of Satan. There in no
neutral position. BELIEVE IT OR NOT !
Any True Christians Today?
Encyclopedia Canadiana says: “The work of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the revival and re-establishment of the primitive Christianity practised by Jesus and his disciples during the first and second centuries of our era. . . . All are brothers.”
What does that mean in practice?
“Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain a strict neutrality in time of war,” notes the Australian Encyclopædia. While as individuals they may choose to take this position, they do not interfere with the affairs of the government under which they live. Thus they did not support Hitler’s war, and so none of them were tried during the Nuremberg trials as war criminals.
One German who was found guilty and executed was Alfred Rosenberg, head of the Nazi Party’s Foreign Affairs Department. Defending the Nazi policy of putting Jehovah’s Witnesses in concentration camps, Rosenberg testified during his trial: “An American chaplain has very kindly given me in my cell a church paper from Columbus [Ohio]. I gather from that that the United States, too, arrested Jehovah’s Witnesses during the war and that until December 1945, 11,000 of them were still detained in camps.” It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses have been strictly neutral, not taking sides in political disputes. They have not shed any blood, in World War II or in any other war.
In Hungary, a writer in Ring magazine of November 4, 1992, said of Jehovah’s Witnesses: “They would choose to die rather than kill someone. Consequently, I am sure if only Jehovah’s Witnesses lived on the earth then wars would not break out anywhere.” Reo M. Christenson, a professor of political science, discussed in The Christian Century whether a genuine Christian could take part in war, and he concluded:
“Can anyone seriously conceive of Jesus hurling hand grenades at his enemies, using a machine gun, manipulating a flamethrower, dropping nuclear bombs or launching an ICBM which would kill or cripple thousands of mothers and children? The question is so absurd that it scarcely merits an answer. If Jesus could not do this and be true to his character, then how can we do it and be true to him?” A thought-provoking question.
Yet, the religions of the world continue to take sides in war. Catholics keep on killing Catholics, and those of other religions kill either people of their own faith or members of other churches.