Jehovah

[dderidex]

You missed the facts of MY case entirely.

The Asians, American Indians, Druids, and African Tribes NEVER HAD A MONOTHEISTIC POINT! It never happened! How does that fit in with your argument? Or, where they really all just monotheistic and didn't know it or something? I guess you'd better go back in time and tell them!

Originally posted by: Vic
You missed the point entirely. How could humans have gone from godlessness to polytheism all at once without at first inventing the concept of a god in the first place? What you're saying is like saying that humans developed a written language without first stumbling through the symbology.

That's not true, though. And a bad example. "You have to believe in *A* god before you can believe in *MANY*" is just a false argument.

That'd be closer to saying "You have to believe in ONE SINGLE human ethnicity before you can believe there are more then one"

That's patently false. You can believe in many ethnicities just as easily as one. Indeed, it would make more sense to believe in MANY ethnicities, given observable diversity, before someone could try and convince you there was only one.

There are many examples of situations where it's equally possible to have your first impression of something new be 'there must be many kinds of this' rather than 'wow, this is great, it must be the only one!'

Colors, for example. Who, upon seeing the color red would immediately think "OMG, this is the ONLY color!" No, you'd instinctively assume there are more.

It's *monotheism* that is the foreign idea to a human's understanding of the world - the idea that there is ONE of any one thing is rather an anathema to us and THAT is the teaching that must be, well, 'taught'. The idea that there are many things (gods, colors, whatever) that are different and equal is the more likely obvious starting point from a primitive culture.

 

[apoppin]

Jehovah is the English [bastardized] spelling of the Hebrew 'Yahweh' which in turn came from the 'YHWH' of which the vowels were lost . . . so there is NO pronnunciation.

He is the god of the jews [of course THEY claim he is the Creator who dealt specifically with their nation because their forefather Abram/Abraham was his "friend"]

 

[Vic]

The multiplicity of ethnicities and colors is an observable fact. Your use of these analogies is so obviously flawed as to be questionable. God and gods are concepts, i.e. non-observable constructs of human intelligence. Like I said, the concept itself must have been imagined first before there could be multiple duplication of it.

There is a considerable amount of evidence of the simultaneous practice of monotheism and polytheism. Observe Christians who believe in astrology. Or the Hindu god Brahman, who is arguably the most complete concept of a singular Almighty God ever conceived of by the human mind, and yet who exists in a religion of polytheism. The American Indians also had a single Almighty God amidst their panthenon of gods (i.e. "Great Spirit").

Your last statement is just a typical misunderstanding regarding this concept of an Almighty God. It is not that there is only ONE of any one thing, but rather the concept that all things are one (and thus all things are sacred). Given the violent nature of human beings, I find it hardly surprising that many people would find this concept to be foreign.

 

[Mo0o]

Apparently he's on trial and he's got a ton of witnesses

 

[Vic]

LOL... the funny thing about this thread is that I really don't like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Too nutty for my tastes.

 

[apoppin]

How does ANYone take the word of an "official religion" as truth?

The OT bible [hebrew scriptures] is a glorification of the jewish nation, of god's "special" dealihg with their TRIBE . . . .

How ANYone can swallow - withOUT confirmation; without questioning their "history" - compiled by their priests - is way way beyond me.

Their bible - adopted by christians - speaks about the Creator [yahweh/jehovah] blessing the entire planet by means of them - 'natural' jews.

What an agenda.
:roll:
:thumbsdown:

jews are master propangadists . . . they've had thousands of years to justify the genocide of their neighbors as "god-directed".

believe what you WANT to

 

[spiderrasmon]

here's another question... was Christ a Jew?

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: spiderrasmon

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Isn't that the same as Yahshua?

only if you believe Constantine.

it was an ok movie. A guy named Jehovah was in it?

and wasnt Yahshua Tar a star trek: the next generation character? you know.. the blond security chick?

 

[spiderrasmon]

Has anyone here actually listened to what Jehovah's witnesses have to say?

 

[LASTGUY2GETPS2]

It comes from the hebrew word "Adonia" (how it is said in hebrew) while it should really be said as "Ye-how-vah"

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

like anyone cares?

 

[spiderrasmon]

what does it mean in English?

 

[spiderrasmon]

bump for clarity

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: spiderrasmon
Has anyone here actually listened to what Jehovah's witnesses have to say?

About what?

The errors in their '1914' timeline? (Hint: Jerusalem didn't fall to the Romans in 607 BCE, it fell in 586/587 BCE - 20 years later then the JWs claim!)

The restriction on blood transfusions based on a few passages in the Old Testament? (Hint: A blood transfusion is NOT - surprise, surprise, 'eating blood'! No digestion occurs, you gain no nourishment from it, a transfusion fails every definition of 'eating' imaginable!)

Their bias against women? (Common to many religions, true, but 'the woman is the weaker vessel' just comes off as a misogynist and backwards attitude in the 21st century. And requiring head coverings when praying or 'teaching' in the presence of a man? Why stop there? Why not just require a full burka??)

Their bizarre teaching that the world was better off BEFORE 1914 than AFTER 1914? (Apparently, they prefer to read Jane Austen rather than Charles Dickens for their understanding of Victorian-era culture....and somehow don't consider living longer, healthier lives with better communication and technology an improvement! EDIT: And, of course, their picking 1914 as a significant date around which all their prophecies rely....is based on Jerusalem falling in 607 BCE. Which it didn't!)

 

[spiderrasmon]

Originally posted by: dderidex

About what?

The errors in their '1914' timeline? (Hint: Jerusalem didn't fall to the Romans in 607 BCE, it fell in 586/587 BCE - 20 years later then the JWs claim!)

In the year 607 B.C.E., the Babylonians destroyed the kingdom of Judah, the city of Jerusalem, and even the magnificent temple there. (not the Romans, so the timeline stands), for the reason "that [they] did not obey [his ]words" (Jeremiah 25:8)

The restriction on blood transfusions based on a few passages in the Old Testament? (Hint: A blood transfusion is NOT - surprise, surprise, 'eating blood'! No digestion occurs, you gain no nourishment from it, a transfusion fails every definition of 'eating' imaginable!)

Read the following: http://watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm?article=article_01.htm
This overview may help you to understand the nonnegotiable religious stand that Jehovah's Witnesses take. They highly value life, and they seek good medical care. But they are determined not to violate God's standard, which has been consistent: Those who respect life as a gift from the Creator do not try to sustain life by taking in blood.

Their bias against women? (Common to many religions, true, but 'the woman is the weaker vessel' just comes off as a misogynist and backwards attitude in the 21st century. And requiring head coverings when praying or 'teaching' in the presence of a man? Why stop there? Why not just require a full burka??)

Women were among Jesus' early disciples and were the first to witness his resurrection. The Bible speaks highly of women such as Lydia, Dorcas, and Prisca as examples of hospitality, compassion, and courage. (Acts 9:36-41; 16:14, 15; Romans 16:3, 4) And early Christians were trained to show women respect. The apostle Paul told his fellow missionary Timothy to treat "older women as mothers, younger women as sisters with all chasteness."?1 Timothy 5:2.
If you are a Christian man, you will show that same respect toward women. You will never use tradition as an excuse for mistreating them. Respectful treatment of women, moreover, can give eloquent testimony to your faith. (Matthew 5:16) Salima, a young woman from Africa, describes how she benefited from observing Christian principles in action.

as for the weaker vessel part, note the following accounts:

"When I began to study the Bible, I learned two important principles regarding the role of the husband," Pedro explains. "They have had a big impact on the way I view my wife. The first, at 1 Peter 3:7, explains that a husband should give his wife honor as the "weaker vessel, the feminine one." The second, at Ephesians 5:28, 29, says that a husband should treat his wife 'as his own body.' Since I have followed that advice, we have become much closer. So we men must attach greater value to God's counsel than to local customs."

Michael, from West Africa, admits that before he began studying the Bible with the Witnesses, he did not treat his wife properly. "I even used to hit her when I got angry," he confesses. "But the Bible taught me that I should change my ways. I now try very hard to control my temper and to love my wife as my own body. And we are both much happier." (Colossians 3:9, 10, 19) His wife, Comfort, concurs: "Now Michael treats me with more respect and affection than is the custom of most husbands in our community. We can talk about our problems and work together as a team."

Pedro and Michael learned to respect and cherish their wives because they took to heart the instructions from God's Word, which makes it clear that injustice to women deeply displeases our Creator.

Their bizarre teaching that the world was better off BEFORE 1914 than AFTER 1914? (Apparently, they prefer to read Jane Austen rather than Charles Dickens for their understanding of Victorian-era culture....and somehow don't consider living longer, healthier lives with better communication and technology an improvement! EDIT: And, of course, their picking 1914 as a significant date around which all their prophecies rely....is based on Jerusalem falling in 607 BCE. Which it didn't!)

you're angry, and likely it's b/c you tried Jehovah's way and couldn't hack it. If you draw close to him in prayer, perhaps you can allow the truth to reach your heart again.

 

[spiderrasmon]

note that Jehovah's Witnesses use the Bible, the entire Bible, and only such as the basis for their teachings and preaching work. everything they do seems to me to be scripturally based.

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: Vic
It reminds me that there is no "J" in the Hebrew language.

there actually is, though. if you put something that looks like an apostrophe next to the letter gimmel, it has a "g" or "j" sound.

however, there is no true spelling for that word in the hebrew language. the gimmel-apostrophe combination is not used very frequently, and probably was only adapted to assimilate sounds from other languages.

 

[Stark]

CROWD OF WOMEN: [yelling]
JEWISH OFFICIAL: Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath.
MATTHIAS: Do I say 'yes'?
STONE HELPER #1: Yes.
MATTHIAS: Yes.
OFFICIAL: You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,...
CROWD: Ooooh!
OFFICIAL: ...you are to be stoned to death.
CROWD: Ahh!
MATTHIAS: Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'
CROWD: Oooooh!
OFFICIAL: Blasphemy!
He's said it again!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, he did! He did!...
OFFICIAL: Did you hear him?!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, we did! We did!...
WOMAN #1: Really!
[silence]
OFFICIAL: Are there any women here today?
CROWD: No. No. No. No...

MATTHIAS: Look. I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying 'Jehovah'.
CROWD: Oooh! He said it again! Oooh!...
OFFICIAL: You're only making it worse for yourself!
MATTHIAS: Making it worse?! How could it be worse?! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
CROWD: Oooooh!...

Jehovah is German. Really.

 

[Ausm]

Run like hell because they are about to knock on your door

Ausm

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: spiderrasmon

Originally posted by: dderidex

About what?

The errors in their '1914' timeline? (Hint: Jerusalem didn't fall to the Romans in 607 BCE, it fell in 586/587 BCE - 20 years later then the JWs claim!)

In the year 607 B.C.E., the Babylonians destroyed the kingdom of Judah, the city of Jerusalem, and even the magnificent temple there. (not the Romans, so the timeline stands), for the reason "that [they] did not obey [his ]words" (Jeremiah 25:8)

Ummm....I hate to disappoint you, but....no, no they didn't.

Nothing happened in 607 BCE. My point above about the Romans was mispoke, terribly sorry about that. It was the Babylonians that destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BCE, not the Romans. Nothing happened in 607. Go ahead and try to prove otherwise.

Originally posted by: spiderrasmon

The restriction on blood transfusions based on a few passages in the Old Testament? (Hint: A blood transfusion is NOT - surprise, surprise, 'eating blood'! No digestion occurs, you gain no nourishment from it, a transfusion fails every definition of 'eating' imaginable!)

Read the following: http://watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm?article=article_01.htm
This overview may help you to understand the nonnegotiable religious stand that Jehovah's Witnesses take. They highly value life, and they seek good medical care. But they are determined not to violate God's standard, which has been consistent: Those who respect life as a gift from the Creator do not try to sustain life by taking in blood.

Repeating it doesn't make it right.

The entire teaching is based on the verse:

You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. Do not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is right --Deuteronomy 12:23-25

...and those like it, which prohibit the eating of blood.

Originally posted by: spiderrasmon

Their bias against women? (Common to many religions, true, but 'the woman is the weaker vessel' just comes off as a misogynist and backwards attitude in the 21st century. And requiring head coverings when praying or 'teaching' in the presence of a man? Why stop there? Why not just require a full burka??)

If you are a Christian man, you will show that same respect toward women. You will never use tradition as an excuse for mistreating them. Respectful treatment of women, moreover, can give eloquent testimony to your faith. (Matthew 5:16) Salima, a young woman from Africa, describes how she benefited from observing Christian principles in action.

Respect?

RESPECT?

Oh, really?

Simple question - are women in your religion required to wear head coverings when praying or teaching scripture in the presence of a man? Yes or no? Are men required to do the same thing?

Originally posted by: spiderrasmon

Their bizarre teaching that the world was better off BEFORE 1914 than AFTER 1914? (Apparently, they prefer to read Jane Austen rather than Charles Dickens for their understanding of Victorian-era culture....and somehow don't consider living longer, healthier lives with better communication and technology an improvement! EDIT: And, of course, their picking 1914 as a significant date around which all their prophecies rely....is based on Jerusalem falling in 607 BCE. Which it didn't!)

you're angry, and likely it's b/c you tried Jehovah's way and couldn't hack it. If you draw close to him in prayer, perhaps you can allow the truth to reach your heart again.

And, again, you dodge the question.

Do you REALLY believe, honestly, the world was a better, safer, happier place before 1914 than after it?

Seriously?

If so, I'd suggest...well, reading more Dickens, actually. "Nicholas Nickleby" and "Our Mutual Friend" are probably good places to start. Realize that THAT was the plot of life for most people.

Also important to remember is that your lifespan in the Victorian era was 30-40 years. 30-40 years! How many members of this board would be DEAD already if they lived before the 20th century!? If you got cancer...you died. If you got pneumonia...you died. If you had ANY kind of bacterial infection...you died. Penicillin (the very first antibiotic) wasn't invented until 1928!

Do you REALLY think the world was better then?

 

[unsped]

cookies for everyone! yay

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: spiderrasmon
Read the following: http://watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm?article=article_01.htm
This overview may help you to understand the nonnegotiable religious stand that Jehovah's Witnesses take. They highly value life, and they seek good medical care. But they are determined not to violate God's standard, which has been consistent: Those who respect life as a gift from the Creator do not try to sustain life by taking in blood.

So... can the JWs eat rare steak?

you're angry, and likely it's b/c you tried Jehovah's way and couldn't hack it. If you draw close to him in prayer, perhaps you can allow the truth to reach your heart again.

That's part of what bothers me about the JWs, their pompousness. "Come back into the truth," and "You mustn't talk to him, he's worldly."

 

[bandana163]

It reminds me of the kingdom hall the Jehovah's witnesses have in my hometown.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

you're angry, and likely it's b/c you tried Jehovah's way and couldn't hack it. If you draw close to him in prayer, perhaps you can allow the truth to reach your heart again.

That's part of what bothers me about the JWs, their pompousness. "Come back into the truth," and "You mustn't talk to him, he's worldly."

More irritating is the constant diversionary responses ("we don't 'refuse blood', we just 'value life'"? What does THAT mean?! And the 'Michael, from West Africa' anecdote was especially amusing. Totally unrelated to the discussion at hand, completely digressive, and irrelevant).

Notice how he didn't even answer several of my questions, anyway!

I wish I could say it's a trait of that religion alone, but most religions and politicians, too, do the same thing. If you cannot or do not want to answer a question, just dazzle them with diversions.

 

[illusion88]

Originally posted by: elektrolokomotive
I sense a public stoning coming on.

no women allowed though. fake beards will be sold at the door.

first thing I thought of.