Author Topic: How to Control Your Anger  (Read 2251 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4930
  • Darwins +358/-117
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Seeing is believing!
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #116 on: May 16, 2018, 03:55:34 PM »
Quote from: JST

I like JB.  I have seen her abused on this forum.  I hate that I added to it.


I like you too brother.

I have done my share of misbehaving too. It does take 2 to tango. ;)

You did not add to any abuse. Lighten up. (((Hugs)))
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #117 on: May 16, 2018, 05:14:16 PM »
Forgive and forget is useless. Forgiveness is for the injured party, not the one who caused the injury. The one who needs healing is the one who can forgive, if they choose, and the benefits of forgiving go to the one who forgives. The forgiven don't even need to know about it, their participation isn't necessary.

I never said "forgive and forget".

I wasn't talking to you.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #118 on: May 17, 2018, 01:28:03 PM »
I lead by example.

You just told junebug that you're anti-social.

Yes,
Let me say it differently. You lead by example, but you are anti-social. That you are trying to change that is beside the point. I'm talking about right now, in your life as it currently is.

So when you say you lead by example, and also that you are anti-social, I don't quite get who you are leading, or maybe who you are setting an example for.

Now, my suspicion is that you are going to have a knee jerk response of 'well my children, of course!" But that's not really true. EVERY parent leads by example, whether they realize that or not. So if you are using your family as your example of leading by example, you are misusing the term. The correct term would be 'parenting'.

I'm not trying to make you feel bad about being anti-social, or about how you approach parenting. I'm advocating for the correct use of words, for the sake of clarity.

And if instead you are referring to the forum, what you are doing is participating. You may see what you are doing as 'setting an example' though. That would be accurate.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #119 on: May 18, 2018, 07:22:26 AM »
Jst:  I would really prefer to not have to keep reminding you about my posts.  I realize you're responding to several people, but given this is the second time you've failed to respond to a post of mine, I'm starting to notice a pattern here.  Especially when one of the people you did respond to was responding to me.

I trust I won't have to keep reminding you of this.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline YRM_DM

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1280
  • Darwins +425/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #120 on: May 18, 2018, 09:30:30 AM »
I posted this for a couple of reasons.

One is because it's useful advice and maybe it will help some one.

Secondly, I wanted to post it to show that the bible is not outdated or backwards.  I think what people needs to understand is that Jesus didn't come to bring a list of rights and wrongs.  Christ came to help teach us the ability to make the right decisions on our own.  He didn't provide a list of laws.  He left guiding principles like the golden rule.

You see that the golden rule is not an identification of right and wrong actions.  It a principle that can help guide us toward loving decisions.  Whereas the law of Moses didn't cross time and cultural bounds, the teachings of Christ do.  These principles will never become obsolete.  These things were already in the law but Christ brought them to light.  These are the things the religious leaders were not observing.

Take for example loving your neighbor.  The Bible teaches that love is caring for the good of others.  So let's reason on that.  Well if we love our neighbors then we will not steal from them.   We will not murder them.  We will not covet their belongings.  We will not commit adultery. 

So what Christ is teaching is to go beyond the law into what the law was trying to teach.  And no matter what time or culture we live in we can apply the Bible's principles.  They are found throughout the Bible.  Not just in Christ's teachings.  These are what you need to identify. 

But the golden rule is a good example.  It's not a law of black and white.  It's a guiding principle.  An American can apply it.  A Russian can apply it.  Anyone can apply it.

...

Honestly it's not a bad thing that you're trying to do.  One of the benefits of church is when the sermon reminds the parish to re-center itself.  I've gone through a lot of big things this year... medical problems, family with medical problems, big life changes...  I've dealt with those things well, but I no longer have patience for the little things that annoy me or people who insult me like I did when I wasn't dealing with all these other emotionally tough issues.   I'm sure I'll recover that patience when or if large problems start to taper off, or if I just get used to having large problems.

However, the Golden Rule exists in some form in every religion.   The good advice given at churches is good advice if given by an atheist or anyone, whether they're JW or Christian or whatever.

You mention as much yourself.

I know you think the Bible is the source of this good advice, but I'd suggest that good advice has been reverse engineered from the Bible and into the Bible.

Also, common sense in dealing with other people existed thousands of years ago. 

Here's an ancient Chinese Proverb.

"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."

Meaning, if you'd planted the tree 20 years ago, you'd have fruit or shade or wood or whatever it was you needed the tree for now.  But you can plant the tree now and there will be benefits in the future.

This obviously applies to anything, like a college degree.   The best time to start a college degree was 4 years ago, or 8 years ago... the second best time is now.

Good advice.

There was good advice thousands of years ago.  It doesn't make it magical or divinely inspired.   Believers just take the good advice and credit it to God or Allah or Vishnu or whatever.

Thanks for sharing though, the good intent is appreciated.

You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18386
  • Darwins +446/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #121 on: May 18, 2018, 10:43:35 AM »
taking advice about anger management from a magical being that can't control its anger is silly.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #122 on: May 18, 2018, 10:44:49 AM »
This isn't the golden rule.  The focus is what you get in return.  That is not what Jesus taught.
Jst, this reasoning is just plain bad.  That book from ancient Egypt said "do to the doer to make him do".  Jesus wrote "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  Given that the former preceded the latter by over 1500 years, it's not the slightest bit surprising that it would have changed somewhat, even leaving out the different cultures.  Ideas (and principles) tend to do that.  Not to mention that Jesus's statement is also focused on what you expect to get in return[1].  So unless you can come up with something better than that, you're not going to be able to convince anyone else of what you're saying.

Really, I don't know why you think it has to be a Jesus original.  It's not like it becomes any less useful of a principle if the original source is not Jesus.  If anything, it makes Jesus look better since he's making sure to spread this important principle around, even though someone else came up with it first.  I'm not saying that Jesus said nothing original.  But human civilizations had been around for thousands of years by the time Jesus came onto the scene.  Do you really think that they would have failed to come up with the odd principle or three in the meantime?  Especially given the sheer amount of knowledge that we've come up with in the last century or two.

There's also another point I think you should consider.  You seem to be trying to get people here to acknowledge that your religion gave things to the world.  But you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that the world would have given things to your religion as well.  It's as if you're concerned that acknowledging things like this would make your religion look worse in the eyes of others.  Even though it wouldn't; acknowledging a truth, inconvenient or not, is far less damaging than trying to deny it.
 1. since the point is to do things to others so that they'll do similar things back to you in the future

Yes sorry.  I overlooked this reply.

The golden rule is not teaching reciprocity.  Jesus may have had some of these things mind when he gave the golden rule, but the golden rule does not teach reciprocity as these others do.  On more than once occasion, Christians are taught to give without expecting anything in return.  It's just like giving to the poor.  You don't give to the poor so they will give back.  The same thing is taught when Christ said, "There is more happiness in giving that there is in receiving."  This is not teaching reciprocity.  Turning the other cheek is not teaching reciprocity.

But I agree with your other point.  It doesn't really matter if Christ was the original author.  I think some of the things Christ taught are just a matter of common sense.  It's not like he just completely reinvented the wheel.  If Christ is not the original author of the golden rule then it doesn't really matter.  But on the other hand I am not going to credit people for the golden rule who were teaching reciprocity.  That is not what Christ taught and I don't thing it is the best way.

It is true that giving can encourage others to give, but that is not the focus of the golden rule.  The golden rule means "you do good", period.  "And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that." (Lk 6:33)

Christ was teaching agape, not reciprocity.  Not only is reciprocity not in the golden rule, it's not in any of Christ's teachings.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18386
  • Darwins +446/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #123 on: May 18, 2018, 10:54:36 AM »
Yes sorry.  I overlooked this reply.

The golden rule is not teaching reciprocity.  Jesus may have had some of these things mind when he gave the golden rule, but the golden rule does not teach reciprocity as these others do.  On more than once occasion, Christians are taught to give without expecting anything in return.  It's just like giving to the poor.  You don't give to the poor so they will give back.  The same thing is taught when Christ said, "There is more happiness in giving that there is in receiving."  This is not teaching reciprocity.  Turning the other cheek is not teaching reciprocity.

But I agree with your other point.  It doesn't really matter if Christ was the original author.  I think some of the things Christ taught are just a matter of common sense.  It's not like he just completely reinvented the wheel.  If Christ is not the original author of the golden rule then it doesn't really matter.  But on the other hand I am not going to credit people for the golden rule who were teaching reciprocity.  That is not what Christ taught and I don't thing it is the best way.

It is true that giving can encourage others to give, but that is not the focus of the golden rule.  The golden rule means "you do good", period.  "And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that." (Lk 6:33)

Christ was teaching agape, not reciprocity.  Not only is reciprocity not in the golden rule, it's not in any of Christ's teachings.

it certainly does matter since this would indicate that Christians repeatedly lie about the origin of the thought.   And they don't care.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline YouCantHandleTheTruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Darwins +125/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #124 on: May 18, 2018, 12:10:39 PM »
If god wrote, or directed a human (s) to write the bible, why would any thing in it ever become obsolete? Everything god gave us humans by way of the bible should stand the test of time. Forever and to infinity.
The bible should never need interpretation or modification.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." - Isaiah 40:8

As we know, that's Old Testament - but apparently it didn't stand forever.

Offline stuffin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1641
  • Darwins +119/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #125 on: May 18, 2018, 12:28:28 PM »
If god wrote, or directed a human (s) to write the bible, why would any thing in it ever become obsolete? Everything god gave us humans by way of the bible should stand the test of time. Forever and to infinity.
The bible should never need interpretation or modification.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." - Isaiah 40:8

As we know, that's Old Testament - but apparently it didn't stand forever.

Thanks, I knew those 4 times I did go to Sunday School would pay off.
Don't stop smiling at the world and keep your head full of hope.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #126 on: May 18, 2018, 06:12:05 PM »
The golden rule is not teaching reciprocity.  Jesus may have had some of these things mind when he gave the golden rule, but the golden rule does not teach reciprocity as these others do.  On more than once occasion, Christians are taught to give without expecting anything in return.  It's just like giving to the poor.  You don't give to the poor so they will give back.  The same thing is taught when Christ said, "There is more happiness in giving that there is in receiving."  This is not teaching reciprocity.  Turning the other cheek is not teaching reciprocity.
It seems like we might be making progress here, because believe it or not, I don't think Jesus was necessarily trying to teach reciprocity here either.  I don't think he was necessarily trying to teach any particular thing, in fact.  If there's one thing I noticed about the various parables and such that are written in the Bible, it's that they don't generally follow the "moral of the story" pattern.  They're intended to present ideas, rather than commands or directives.  And more to the point, the ideas are things which are open to interpretation.  Modern Christians have been taught to take them in a certain way, because they have been taught that Jesus was the Son of God and thus a divine source of infallible knowledge.  But during the decades and centuries immediately afterwards, the exact opposite was true.  Christians disagreed with each other on just about everything, and part of that was because of the various parables that were included in his teachings.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing
But I agree with your other point.  It doesn't really matter if Christ was the original author.  I think some of the things Christ taught are just a matter of common sense.  It's not like he just completely reinvented the wheel.  If Christ is not the original author of the golden rule then it doesn't really matter.  But on the other hand I am not going to credit people for the golden rule who were teaching reciprocity.  That is not what Christ taught and I don't thing it is the best way.

It is true that giving can encourage others to give, but that is not the focus of the golden rule.  The golden rule means "you do good", period.  "And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that." (Lk 6:33)
I'd agree in general with this as well.  I think most of the time, the idea with such things was not to teach reciprocity, but to encourage things (like reciprocity, and empathy) that people already had.  I mean, seriously.  The general idea has been kicking around for at least 3500 years.  And I think people have shown that humans have engaged in things like reciprocity and empathy, at least within familial/tribal units, for much longer than that.  Trying to teach reciprocity and empathy to people who didn't already have an understanding of the concept would probably be about as effective as trying to teach a blind person about color.  It's not that ancient humans didn't express those things to other humans, it's that they only expressed them to humans they had some actual relationship with - family or tribe, mostly.  But the 'neighbor' is not necessarily either.  It could be anyone.  So the point, I think was to get people to extend their internalized concepts of reciprocity and empathy out beyond the known quantities of family and tribe.

I don't agree with the general concept of 'agape' that Christians like to talk about, though.  But that's mainly because the idea is rather counterproductive for Christians.  If you love God more than anything else, then it's remarkably easy to find excuses to avoid loving your neighbor.  After all, once you've put your whole heart, mind, etc, into loving a god, there isn't a whole lot of room left for loving anyone else.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing
Christ was teaching agape, not reciprocity.  Not only is reciprocity not in the golden rule, it's not in any of Christ's teachings.
So you have been taught, by other Jehovah's Witnesses.  But your sect as a whole has not existed for very long, only since around the 1870s.  That means, even under the best possible circumstances, your sect is over 1800 years removed from the time Jesus is said to have lived.  Before then, the Bible and the teachings in it were taught by other Christian sects.  Now, you obviously do not think they are correct in their interpretations of the Bible, otherwise you would be a member of one of those sects.  But that being the case, is there any reason to think that they might not have made other mistakes in terms of what they passed down?
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4722
  • Darwins +474/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #127 on: May 18, 2018, 08:22:20 PM »
Jesus attempted to get the point across that you should love your enemy, because the Jews already had a system that forced them to love their neighbour. Karma naturally teaches you to love your enemy, because it's obvious that your enemy is part of the cosmic point scoring system. Karma is also not the bees knees in understanding Buddhist thought. Buddhism is way more sophisticated than that. Sometimes, it sees another person as a reincarnated YOU, so obviously you should be kind to yourself. Their idea of selflessness goes way beyond what is apparent, into detachment and rising above the ego. Detachment leads you to give your wealth away. The karmic system also generally says you have loads of karma to work off, so you have to be super nice to everybody and everyTHING. But you also have to transcend just doing it for your own benefit, or you are just full of pride. Buddhism recognizes different states of personal development. It also acknowledges that your desire to eliminate desire is a desire. Buddhism also has Bodhisatvas, who are teachers who stay around, even though they have worked off their karma. Jesus would be believed to be one of these.

The point of mentioning karma is that the karmic idea was invented way before Christianity, so you can see the way Chinese and Indian cultures would have been FORCED to develop, even if you can't get clear dates on when they were teaching things similar to the Pharisees. Christianity seems to be poorly stated Buddhism. You can see all the components of Buddhism, but it's a cut and paste train wreck. Some of the exposition of Christianity is done by Paul, because Jesus' motivational explanations are very bad. But Paul's explanation of Christianity comes with it's own confusing payload of grace and resurrection.

The Bible, as written, is a confusing mess. That's why Christians can't consistently explain what you are supposed to do. There's no reincarnation, so they have no explanation of why god lets most of Africa wallow in plagues and slavery, and why a bunch of conceited Americans get the high life. Jesus didn't even explain the basics, enough to get hell straight, or soul theory understood. His triumph, the Sermon on the Mount, is believed to be hyperbole, yet it's full of statements that indicate it isn't. Christianity has too many factions, and because of its underlying lack of theory, has no obvious truth or direction to it. Each person is supposed to get in touch with Jesus on their own personal Jesus-phone and ask what he meant. Each person has to become their own Jesus expert who condemns what all the other Jesus experts are telling people.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4722
  • Darwins +474/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #128 on: May 18, 2018, 08:51:48 PM »
But the point is, if you are going to yammer on about the Golden Rule, and how Christianity invented it, you are really doing this typical Christian thing of implying the Golden Rule is superior and invented by the Christian god. It's just as annoying as the way Christians implicitly take credit for their God creating the universe or morality.

The Golden Rule has not been proven to be superior to anything, because we have no idea of how the universe really works. In Christianity, God and Jesus just tell you to do it, without explaining why. They could just as easily say you should whack yourself on the head with a red ruler every day. But would we fall for that? Would we believe that was the secret of life? Probably not, but (in this case) we are stupid enough to believe that the Golden Rule is the superior secret of life, so Christians try to own it.

Such is the progression of Christian logic: find pretend superior things that they can pretend to own. Their exploitation of the Hebrew text was just the start.

When I think about it, God is just another thing they pretend to own. They can't prove he exists, but no matter what he is, they own him. The Hebrews didn't own God, because God sort of of messed them around and didn't give them anything. But Christians own God. They talk to him, and he will let them into his Kingdom for free, after finding their car keys and healing their dogs. It's a wonder they don't depict God on a leash. God, the humble servant of Christians.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 09:16:23 PM by Add Homonym »
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4722
  • Darwins +474/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #129 on: May 19, 2018, 01:45:14 AM »
Yes sorry.  I overlooked this reply.

The golden rule is not teaching reciprocity.  Jesus may have had some of these things mind when he gave the golden rule, but the golden rule does not teach reciprocity as these others do.  On more than once occasion, Christians are taught to give without expecting anything in return.  It's just like giving to the poor.  You don't give to the poor so they will give back.  The same thing is taught when Christ said, "There is more happiness in giving that there is in receiving."  This is not teaching reciprocity.  Turning the other cheek is not teaching reciprocity.

But I agree with your other point.  It doesn't really matter if Christ was the original author.  I think some of the things Christ taught are just a matter of common sense.  It's not like he just completely reinvented the wheel.  If Christ is not the original author of the golden rule then it doesn't really matter.  But on the other hand I am not going to credit people for the golden rule who were teaching reciprocity.  That is not what Christ taught and I don't thing it is the best way.

It is true that giving can encourage others to give, but that is not the focus of the golden rule.  The golden rule means "you do good", period.  "And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that." (Lk 6:33)

Christ was teaching agape, not reciprocity.  Not only is reciprocity not in the golden rule, it's not in any of Christ's teachings.

I can't remember if you said maybe we could ascertain the performance of the golden rule over a couple of centuries. Maybe I imagined it. But if you did, then that would be a performance-based way of evaluating something, which is dangerous territory.

Quote
But on the other hand I am not going to credit people for the golden rule who were teaching reciprocity.

Christianity is teaching people that if they don't give to their neighbour, they will burn in hell, or not enter the kingdom, or be lesser in the kingdom. Each religion has its levels of thought on the subject, and Christianity has a base level of threat.

Quote
That is not what Christ taught and I don't thing it is the best way.

And it was that easy to admit it was all your opinion, and not something you could prove the real god of the universe wants.



When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 9049
  • Darwins +446/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #130 on: May 19, 2018, 10:07:04 AM »
[snip]
God, the humble servant of Christians.

This should be a meme. This is a fundamental aspect of SPAG, something we know is rampant in Christianity. When humans invent a god, and that god is rejected as humans evolve, that god morphs into whatever the group or individual decides it should be. And with SPAG in full force it truly comes down to individuals. It is child's play to work with two "Christians" in the same sect and identify something they do not agree on. There's safety in groups, but when the group splinters among its members, those even minor distinctions become monumental.

As soon as each individual Christian begins to see their own biases within their own sect, gods will erode even further. The god model that has been carried to this point is literally unsustainable given the evolution of the human condition.

God serves the Christian, not the other way around. God is dead.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #131 on: May 19, 2018, 03:16:46 PM »
It seems like we might be making progress here, because believe it or not, I don't think Jesus was necessarily trying to teach reciprocity here either.  I don't think he was necessarily trying to teach any particular thing, in fact.  If there's one thing I noticed about the various parables and such that are written in the Bible, it's that they don't generally follow the "moral of the story" pattern.  They're intended to present ideas, rather than commands or directives.  And more to the point, the ideas are things which are open to interpretation.  Modern Christians have been taught to take them in a certain way, because they have been taught that Jesus was the Son of God and thus a divine source of infallible knowledge.  But during the decades and centuries immediately afterwards, the exact opposite was true.  Christians disagreed with each other on just about everything, and part of that was because of the various parables that were included in his teachings.

Yes, I would agree with that.  It appears that with a lot of Christ's teachings he wasn't teaching do's and don'ts so much as trying to get people into the right frame of mind.  "There is more happiness in giving that there is in receiving", is an example.  It doesn't contain any commands, but it is teaching to be in a giving spirit.  These are principles.  There are examples outside the Bible, like "practice makes perfect".  One could use these principles to create rules and laws, but these can change with time and culture.  But the underlying principles are still as applicable/

Quote
Christians disagreed with each other on just about everything, and part of that was because of the various parables that were included in his teachings.

Yes, this is true.  But it also can be seen that the Jews, or at least the religious leaders, treated the Law, which was very specific, the same way.  They even tried using the law to suppress Jesus.  Christ condemned their use of the law. 

So when you start talking about more open-ended principles that problem is going to persist because people haven't changed.  This actually highlights another principle taught by Christ.  "The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things, whereas the wicked man out of his wicked treasure sends out wicked things" (Mt 12:35).  And this crosses all boundaries.  It's true of believers.  It's true of unbelievers.  It's true for all cultures past and present.  What it's basically saying is that good people will do good and bad people will do bad.  That's why Christ focused on the heart and the thought processes.  You can make a law requiring people to give to the poor or you can teach people to have a giving heart.

Quote
I'd agree in general with this as well.  I think most of the time, the idea with such things was not to teach reciprocity, but to encourage things (like reciprocity, and empathy) that people already had.  I mean, seriously.  The general idea has been kicking around for at least 3500 years.  And I think people have shown that humans have engaged in things like reciprocity and empathy, at least within familial/tribal units, for much longer than that.  Trying to teach reciprocity and empathy to people who didn't already have an understanding of the concept would probably be about as effective as trying to teach a blind person about color.  It's not that ancient humans didn't express those things to other humans, it's that they only expressed them to humans they had some actual relationship with - family or tribe, mostly.  But the 'neighbor' is not necessarily either.  It could be anyone.  So the point, I think was to get people to extend their internalized concepts of reciprocity and empathy out beyond the known quantities of family and tribe.

Yes, I would agree with that too.  I think this is especially seen in the parable of the Good Samaritan.  Samaritans were despised by Jews. 

Quote
I don't agree with the general concept of 'agape' that Christians like to talk about, though.  But that's mainly because the idea is rather counterproductive for Christians.  If you love God more than anything else, then it's remarkably easy to find excuses to avoid loving your neighbor.  After all, once you've put your whole heart, mind, etc, into loving a god, there isn't a whole lot of room left for loving anyone else.

I agree with that too.  I think the error usually creeps in when doctrines are allowed to override Christ's actual instructions, like I mentioned earlier.  Instead of listening to the instructions God actually provided through Christ, they make up their own based on what they think God likes/dislikes.  The oppression of homosexuals always comes first to my mind as a modern example.  I am in agreement with them that the Bible teaches against homosexuality.  However, that doesn't change what God, through Christ, said to do.  "Do no judge".  "Love your neighbor".  "Be at peace with others".  "Turn the other cheek".  Christ never condoned sin, but he never rejected anyone that didn't reject him first. 

The Bible condemns law breaking, period.  These people are just ignorant or hypocrites.   "For if anyone obeys all the Law but makes a false step in one point, he has become an offender against all of it" (James 2:10).  By condemning homosexuals as law breakers, they are actually condemning themselves as law breakers.  "For the one who does not practice mercy will have his judgment without mercy" (James 2:13).

So yes, I understand what you are saying.  But these people cannot do the things they do without actually disregarding what Christ actually instructed.  Instead of submitting to the things of Christ they are trying to play God themselves.  In my interactions, it also appears that in their minds they don't always distinguish between a teaching, and an instruction.

For me, placing love of God above the love of neighbor is, in principle, the same as placing the love of goodness over the love of your neighbor.  Yes, you could abuse that too if your neighbor is doing bad things.  Or, you could use it as a guiding principle in helping your neighbor.  For example, let's say your neighbor is a crack addict.  Placing a love of goodness above love of the crack addict will help you determine the best way to love your neighbor.  Obviously the best way to love him is to help him overcome his addiction.  This is a very obvious example, but sometimes the lines can get blurred and priorities can get mixed up.

Quote
So you have been taught, by other Jehovah's Witnesses.  But your sect as a whole has not existed for very long, only since around the 1870s.  That means, even under the best possible circumstances, your sect is over 1800 years removed from the time Jesus is said to have lived.  Before then, the Bible and the teachings in it were taught by other Christian sects.  Now, you obviously do not think they are correct in their interpretations of the Bible, otherwise you would be a member of one of those sects.  But that being the case, is there any reason to think that they might not have made other mistakes in terms of what they passed down?

Quote from: jst
]Christ was teaching agape, not reciprocity.  Not only is reciprocity not in the golden rule, it's not in any of Christ's teachings.

I don't think many believers would disagree with this particular statement, but I understand your point.  If we are talking about the Bible then, there is no need to rely on others.  And there are different Canons.  Witnesses use the same Canon as Protestants because it's believed to be correct, not because it's Protestant.  And there is universal acceptance of those 66 books.  Some others just add to them.

But I don't necessarliy think everything that has been passed down is wrong.  But I don't think just because something is old that it's necessarily right either.  The Bible shows that even in the time of the apostles that apastasy and secterianism was already an issue.  The only thing restraining it was the apostles themselves.  So just because something is old, that doesn't make it right.  What makes a religion right, is doing what Christ said.

"Therefore, everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does them will be like a discreet man who built his house on the rock. 25

And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and lashed against that house, but it did not cave in, for it had been founded on the rock. 26

Furthermore, everyone hearing these sayings of mine and not doing them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27

And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and struck against that house, and it caved in, and its collapse was great.” (Mt 7:24-27)
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #132 on: May 19, 2018, 03:59:16 PM »
Jesus attempted to get the point across that you should love your enemy, because the Jews already had a system that forced them to love their neighbour. Karma naturally teaches you to love your enemy, because it's obvious that your enemy is part of the cosmic point scoring system. Karma is also not the bees knees in understanding Buddhist thought. Buddhism is way more sophisticated than that. Sometimes, it sees another person as a reincarnated YOU, so obviously you should be kind to yourself. Their idea of selflessness goes way beyond what is apparent, into detachment and rising above the ego. Detachment leads you to give your wealth away. The karmic system also generally says you have loads of karma to work off, so you have to be super nice to everybody and everyTHING. But you also have to transcend just doing it for your own benefit, or you are just full of pride. Buddhism recognizes different states of personal development. It also acknowledges that your desire to eliminate desire is a desire. Buddhism also has Bodhisatvas, who are teachers who stay around, even though they have worked off their karma. Jesus would be believed to be one of these.

The point of mentioning karma is that the karmic idea was invented way before Christianity, so you can see the way Chinese and Indian cultures would have been FORCED to develop, even if you can't get clear dates on when they were teaching things similar to the Pharisees. Christianity seems to be poorly stated Buddhism. You can see all the components of Buddhism, but it's a cut and paste train wreck. Some of the exposition of Christianity is done by Paul, because Jesus' motivational explanations are very bad. But Paul's explanation of Christianity comes with it's own confusing payload of grace and resurrection.

The Bible, as written, is a confusing mess. That's why Christians can't consistently explain what you are supposed to do. There's no reincarnation, so they have no explanation of why god lets most of Africa wallow in plagues and slavery, and why a bunch of conceited Americans get the high life. Jesus didn't even explain the basics, enough to get hell straight, or soul theory understood. His triumph, the Sermon on the Mount, is believed to be hyperbole, yet it's full of statements that indicate it isn't. Christianity has too many factions, and because of its underlying lack of theory, has no obvious truth or direction to it. Each person is supposed to get in touch with Jesus on their own personal Jesus-phone and ask what he meant. Each person has to become their own Jesus expert who condemns what all the other Jesus experts are telling people.

Christ's teachings are not based on karma, nor do the Hebrews scriptures teach karma.  So the Golden Rule is not teaching Karma.  The closest thing to karma in the scriptures is, "you reap what you sow", but it also acknolwedges "time and unforseen occurances bafall us all".  So it is not teaching karma either.  And karma is based on receiving what you put forward.  It's about what YOU get.  In Job, we see the opposite of karma at work.

Quote
Each person is supposed to get in touch with Jesus on their own personal Jesus-phone and ask what he meant. Each person has to become their own Jesus expert who condemns what all the other Jesus experts are telling people.

Ironically, this shows an underlying agreement.  The agreement behind it is that there are not many true Christianities.  In the Bible, that much is obvious, considering all the warnings against false prophets that are really "ravenous wolves".   What is not clear, is what is true and what is not.

To compound this issue the Bible doesn't teach it's okay to be just "me and Jesus".  He did leave a church with authority.  But the Bible also talks about a Great Apostasy.  According to Catholcism, their counsels were a reaction to this.  Okay, that's logical.  The best argument the Catholic Church has is it's age.  Where is falls apart is when you apply what Jesus taught. 

“Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves."

How will you know them?  "Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men."  Examined under this light, what have been the fruits of Catholocism?  Has it imitated Christ?  Or has it been a murderer and a manslayer like the religious leaders of Jesus' time?  I'm sure you can infer my answer.  But you will have to make up your own mind.  I'm just telling you what I think are the right questions.  I mean, I don't expect perfection, but come on.  I at least expect you not to be the pack leader in everything evil that has been done under the sun.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4722
  • Darwins +474/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #133 on: May 19, 2018, 10:42:23 PM »
Jesus attempted to get the point across that you should love your enemy, because the Jews already had a system that forced them to love their neighbour. Karma naturally teaches you to love your enemy, because it's obvious that your enemy is part of the cosmic point scoring system. Karma is also not the bees knees in understanding Buddhist thought. Buddhism is way more sophisticated than that. Sometimes, it sees another person as a reincarnated YOU, so obviously you should be kind to yourself. Their idea of selflessness goes way beyond what is apparent, into detachment and rising above the ego. Detachment leads you to give your wealth away. The karmic system also generally says you have loads of karma to work off, so you have to be super nice to everybody and everyTHING. But you also have to transcend just doing it for your own benefit, or you are just full of pride. Buddhism recognizes different states of personal development. It also acknowledges that your desire to eliminate desire is a desire. Buddhism also has Bodhisatvas, who are teachers who stay around, even though they have worked off their karma. Jesus would be believed to be one of these.

The point of mentioning karma is that the karmic idea was invented way before Christianity, so you can see the way Chinese and Indian cultures would have been FORCED to develop, even if you can't get clear dates on when they were teaching things similar to the Pharisees. Christianity seems to be poorly stated Buddhism. You can see all the components of Buddhism, but it's a cut and paste train wreck. Some of the exposition of Christianity is done by Paul, because Jesus' motivational explanations are very bad. But Paul's explanation of Christianity comes with it's own confusing payload of grace and resurrection.

The Bible, as written, is a confusing mess. That's why Christians can't consistently explain what you are supposed to do. There's no reincarnation, so they have no explanation of why god lets most of Africa wallow in plagues and slavery, and why a bunch of conceited Americans get the high life. Jesus didn't even explain the basics, enough to get hell straight, or soul theory understood. His triumph, the Sermon on the Mount, is believed to be hyperbole, yet it's full of statements that indicate it isn't. Christianity has too many factions, and because of its underlying lack of theory, has no obvious truth or direction to it. Each person is supposed to get in touch with Jesus on their own personal Jesus-phone and ask what he meant. Each person has to become their own Jesus expert who condemns what all the other Jesus experts are telling people.

Christ's teachings are not based on karma, nor do the Hebrews scriptures teach karma.  So the Golden Rule is not teaching Karma.  The closest thing to karma in the scriptures is, "you reap what you sow", but it also acknolwedges "time and unforseen occurances bafall us all".  So it is not teaching karma either.  And karma is based on receiving what you put forward.  It's about what YOU get.  In Job, we see the opposite of karma at work.

Quote
Each person is supposed to get in touch with Jesus on their own personal Jesus-phone and ask what he meant. Each person has to become their own Jesus expert who condemns what all the other Jesus experts are telling people.

Ironically, this shows an underlying agreement.  The agreement behind it is that there are not many true Christianities.  In the Bible, that much is obvious, considering all the warnings against false prophets that are really "ravenous wolves".   What is not clear, is what is true and what is not.

To compound this issue the Bible doesn't teach it's okay to be just "me and Jesus".  He did leave a church with authority.  But the Bible also talks about a Great Apostasy.  According to Catholcism, their counsels were a reaction to this.  Okay, that's logical.  The best argument the Catholic Church has is it's age.  Where is falls apart is when you apply what Jesus taught. 

“Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves."

How will you know them?  "Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men."  Examined under this light, what have been the fruits of Catholocism?  Has it imitated Christ?  Or has it been a murderer and a manslayer like the religious leaders of Jesus' time?  I'm sure you can infer my answer.  But you will have to make up your own mind.  I'm just telling you what I think are the right questions.  I mean, I don't expect perfection, but come on.  I at least expect you not to be the pack leader in everything evil that has been done under the sun.


Quote
Christ's teachings are not based on karma, nor do the Hebrews scriptures teach karma.  So the Golden Rule is not teaching Karma.  The closest thing to karma in the scriptures is, "you reap what you sow", but it also acknolwedges "time and unforseen occurances bafall us all".  So it is not teaching karma either.  And karma is based on receiving what you put forward.  It's about what YOU get.  In Job, we see the opposite of karma at work.

>> In Job, we see the opposite of karma at work.

It's not clear what we see in Job. The guy gets sick, due to a joke with Satan; they kill all his family. His friends all lecture him about how he must have done something to deserve it. Then because he mopes in the right way, God gives it all back again. We can't tell if God is capricious or sorry for him.

As far as I can work out, in the context of this discussion, it doesn't matter what the underlying theory is, or what the Magic Rule is. If a small bunch of people go around giving everything they have, without hope of return, those people get drained. You end up with a sub-section of society with nothing left to give. If their religion is not correct about their salvation, then those people have simply been drained financially, when they could have done other things with their lives. Maybe some of them would have been great musicians, or inventors. The fact is, you (personally) hedge against being drained, by not giving everything you have. You disobey Christ's word, and behave more like someone who believes in something else.

You can't claim that Christ's teaching of the golden rule is great, if it doesn't amount to your salvation, or a prosperous society. But, instead makes some people feel guilty for not serving, and others for being served by someone who had nothing much to give. If your benchmark is salvation, then you have to prove it happens. If your benchmark is a prosperous society, then you have to prove our prosperous society resulted from giving everything we have to poor people, because we were selfless *cough*, rather than enslaving half of africa, or because we thought helping poor people might pay off. No point in patting yourself on the back for being with a religion that has the most pure, selfless rule, if it doesn't give you salvation, or if it wasn't the thing which made for a better society.

We do notice in India, a lack of a philanthropic class, and an entrenchment of caste system, because they have gone and believed that people who eat shit, deserve it. Buddha's teachings and implications of karma have been ignored, by people who only half believe the religion, and also hedge their bets. It should be fairly clear from the law of karma that helping untouchables is good for your own karma.

What I think has worked in Christianity is simply threatening people with hell if they do bad things, or hang onto all their money. Plus the believability of Christianity is important. Yet, for some reason they felt OK to enslave half of Africa, India, and purge Muslims back to the deserts. For this reason, it's more logical to conclude that our society was built by people who half believed Jesus, responded to threats and loved racism.

We have about 4 cultures worth looking at, to determine which philosophical rule could produce prosperity: Western Christian, Indian Hindu, Arabic Muslim, Chinese random Buddhism, Taoism, atheism. How do we determine who had the best spiritual rule, when random geographical events are what shaped each culture? Arguably, Christianity ascended because it could exploit african slaves and mine coal, due to easy deposits in UK. Arabic culture could have dominated, had perhaps their religion been less dogmatic and there were no dogmatic Christians to the north. Islam has no obvious golden rule, but does emphasize giving money to orphans and being slightly nice to slaves and women. India may not have risen, due to the hot weather and sheer diversity of religion and conflicts. China was inward looking, had tyrant emperors, heavy bureaucracy and no coal. Maybe their mistake was to not enslave India.

Christianity has won, on the back of hideous slavery, elimination of native peoples and exploitation. Not a good look. You talk about the fruit from the tree.



* The point of mentioning karma is that it pre-dates Siddhartha Gautama (563/480 – c. 483/400 BCE), who definitely believed in the golden rule, and acted on it, prior or roughly the same time as the Hebrews had inserted it into their texts. Karma, a pre-existing doctrine, shaped his interpretation. But his idea/interpretation of karma has been perverted, the same way as Christians pervert most of their doctrine and grace. Point is, this idea of the golden rule was kicking about in India and China, but we can't date it. Our current culture is biased towards preserving documents that build up the Christian ego. Bazillions of ancient Greek documents have been burned or neglected by Christians, so we even lack knowing what Greeks thought.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2018, 11:21:03 PM by Add Homonym »
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4722
  • Darwins +474/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #134 on: May 20, 2018, 12:20:57 AM »
Ironically, this shows an underlying agreement.  The agreement behind it is that there are not many true Christianities.  In the Bible, that much is obvious, considering all the warnings against false prophets that are really "ravenous wolves".   What is not clear, is what is true and what is not.

These ravening wolves created the canon, and decided to put Paul into it. You will notice that Jesus does not tell anyone to put Paul into it. And even if he did, you can't be sure whether the ravening wolves modified what he said. You perhaps have the right to select individual books of the NT as being true, based on your own connection with the divine. You might like Matthew, but not believe Revelation. It was the ravening wolves who put both Matthew and Revelation into the canon. If you pretend that Matthew has not been modified, then you may accept what it says. But that does not logically mean that you can modify its interpretation by using quotes from John or Luke, unless you have some kind of personal message from Jesus that the ravening wolves got everything right in those books.

I can see some kind of primitive logic in believing that Matthew was written early, and that his book was written by an eye-witness, and why would he lie? If that's the case, then you have to believe it. However, Luke just says he is collecting stuff from around the place. John seems to be the ultimate example of a ravening wolf, because he consumes the entirety of Jesus' words, to create his picture of Jesus. Even the golden rule is missing. If you believe Matthew, then John can't be an eye witness. It's like if the police got a second "eye witness" to a crime, but he was unable to quote a single word similar to the first one, they would just bury that eye witness.

Quote
What is not clear, is what is true and what is not.

I'd say if you believe Matthew, it's fairly clear that John and Revelation should be chucked out, because the ravening wolves did it.


Quote
To compound this issue the Bible doesn't teach it's okay to be just "me and Jesus".  He did leave a church with authority.

How do you know? This is documented by a few words, written by possibly the ravening wolves. The Catholic church could easily modify a couple of documents, to say they had authority. Eusebius supposedly wrote THE church history, but he started off being aryan. Presumably he re-wrote it, when he had to document trinitarian popes. Then the book wasn't finished, and I suppose we don't even know whether he really wrote it. The early churches would have had MANY disputed lineages who claimed to be carrying the genuine kiss of Jesus. It's a simple matter to wipe all knowledge of them, once you get properly into power.

The Muratorian fragment, written in 7th century, proves little about the authenticity of the early church. They can pretend (maybe half genuinely) the fragment refers to a list of books compiled in 170AD. But in the same library in 170, there may have been other canons, which got burned. And even the document quoted may have been whimsically altered by the 7th Century scribe. To actually prove that the current Christian canon is at least democratically valid, you need to archeologically bump into many ancient texts that you can date from 170, and see statistical agreement. Otherwise, you can pretty much assume that an orthodox scribe will quote a previous orthodox document, rather than a heretical one.

"The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to about 170 because its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (140—155), as recent:"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

Quote
  But the Bible also talks about a Great Apostasy.  According to Catholcism, their counsels were a reaction to this.  Okay, that's logical.  The best argument the Catholic Church has is it's age.  Where is falls apart is when you apply what Jesus taught. 

Perhaps I should emphasize again, that it's not a matter of how old the Catholic church is. Just say the Catholic church did not have the power to rewrite history - which we know it did, anyway. Just say. Then there would have still been parallel intact histories of other churches, that rose at the same time, that were later eradicated. So we know about Marcionism from attacks by Tertullian. We would only know about other parallel churches by the orthodox venom spat at them. If the venom didn't look good, they would delete it, and if there was a group of true Christians, they would never form a church, and the Catholics would have left them alone. By definition, an untrue church will arise, if Jesus' teaching makes it difficult to form honest power structures in a true church. The golden rule is: he who has the gold, rules.

One telling thing about the authenticity of Catholicism is their lack of ability to preserve any early documents. Codex Sinaiticus 500AD, is the best they can come up with. If you want to prove lineage, then documents are a good start. You could argue that the genuine church had a copy of Matthew, and someone had some works of Paul. But what do you know, the true Catholic church ended up with NO genuine documents. Guess they weren't in the right place at the right time? Guess someone genuine had the documents?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 01:40:41 AM by Add Homonym »
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4930
  • Darwins +358/-117
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Seeing is believing!
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #135 on: May 20, 2018, 07:07:23 AM »
Quote from: JST

"Do no judge".  "Love your neighbor".  "Be at peace with others".  "Turn the other cheek".  Christ never condoned sin, but he never rejected anyone that didn't reject him first.  

I am in agreement with them that the Bible teaches against homosexuality.  

These people are just ignorant or hypocrites.  


No, Jesus did not encourage folks to stone homosexuals. It is a so-called demand given by Yahweh (Jesus' father). Technically, gays were rejected first.

Yes, Jesus tells believers not to judge then you call people hypocrites. That is a judgement call. Judging is human nature. It cannot be undone. Not picking up a hitchhiker is a good example. They might kill you. Not moving a homeless person into your home, is a judgement call. They might kill you, or rob you blind. Judging others keeps us safe and alive.

This article gives some good reasons not to judge:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-the-questions/201410/10-reasons-stop-judging-people%3famp

That is one of many problems with Jesus' teachings. Other than going to Hell, he does not explain how a behavior effects self. You can NOT JUDGE 365 days a year. That does not guarantee that others will not judge you.

Let's consider your judgement that non-JWs are hypocrites. Maybe that's the only way of being they know. I am confident you can find scripture, especially in regards to gays, to explain their behavior.

It is not possible to determine a false prophet without judging. I can have empathy for you knowing that you are learning this stuff from religious cherry picking, but it doesn't mean I cannot identify those contradicting remarks. They jumped out at me like a jack-in-the-box. Can I help that happened to me? Is it just how my brain works?


If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4930
  • Darwins +358/-117
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Seeing is believing!
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #136 on: May 20, 2018, 07:35:07 AM »
Speaking of do unto others, would you want people to ignore your questions?

Does the bible not say that God will give you the words?

Luke12:11 “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready ALWAYS to give answer to every man that asked you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

Luke 21:15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.

Matthew 10:20 "For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.

Isaiah 51:16 16 I will give you the words I want you to say...

Is Jehovah speaking to us through you? If so, Jehovah cannot answer why he has emotions. Jehovah cannot answer why he cannot control his anger.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline Steve

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Darwins +28/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #137 on: May 20, 2018, 09:42:46 AM »
Christ never condoned sin,
And yet he  was a sinner himself. A liar, a thief, and he dishonoured his mother.
I'm always jolly because I know where all the bad girls live.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #138 on: May 20, 2018, 06:30:05 PM »
Yes, Jesus tells believers not to judge then you call people hypocrites. That is a judgement call. Judging is human nature. It cannot be undone. Not picking up a hitchhiker is a good example. They might kill you. Not moving a homeless person into your home, is a judgement call. They might kill you, or rob you blind. Judging others keeps us safe and alive.

Judging someone has to do with judging their worth before God.  Christians are required to make judgments between right and wrong or they cannot even do what is right. 

If I say you are a homosexual, that is not a judgment of you.  If someone says I am a heterosexual that is not a judgment of me.  When people are picketing outside saying that God hates you, that is a judgment of you.  It is a condemnation.

Quote
That is one of many problems with Jesus' teachings. Other than going to Hell, he does not explain how a behavior effects self. You can NOT JUDGE 365 days a year. That does not guarantee that others will not judge you.

I don't believe in hell, but I still don't believe in judging you.  I have also said you are kind.  That is a judgment but not a judgment of your value before God.  Judging someone means passing down some sentence, declaring them saved or condemned.  If I were to say your kindness has gained you salvation that would be wrong.  Or if I say something bad you have done will keep you out of paradise that would be a judgment of you.

The reason I don't judge is because I can't do it without equally judging myself, neither can those other people.  The fact of the matter is we are all lawbreakers.  Personally, I'd rather be homosexual than the ones condeming them.  Plus I don't condemn because I really don't know.  I can identify bliblical and unbliblical behavior but I can't judge thoughts and intentions.  That's where Christ looks.

Quote
Let's consider your judgement that non-JWs are hypocrites.

I didn't say that.  I don't believe it either.  But I can identify hypocrisy.  When you have Christians killing Christians in the greatest war the world has ever seen, they are not obeying Jesus.  Their "fruit" shows their leaders are false prophets.

Quote
Maybe that's the only way of being they know

No it's not because they had the teachings of Christ.  But I did say they were either ignorant or....

Quote
I am confident you can find scripture, especially in regards to gays, to explain their behavior.

No, I can't.  All I can find that I am supposed to do is inform people what Christ taught and to observe his teachings.  If I were to persecute gays then I'd also have to persecute all breakers of God's law, of which I am one.

Quote
It is not possible to determine a false prophet without judging. I can have empathy for you knowing that you are learning this stuff from religious cherry picking, but it doesn't mean I cannot identify those contradicting remarks. They jumped out at me like a jack-in-the-box. Can I help that happened to me? Is it just how my brain works?

I am not cherry picking.  When one picks what Lev. says and ignores literally almost everything taught by Jesus, that is cherry picking.

And yes, you must used judgment to determine a false prophet.  But that doesn't mean you should condemn them. 

Quote
Is Jehovah speaking to us through you? If so, Jehovah cannot answer why he has emotions. Jehovah cannot answer why he cannot control his anger.

I have answered, first by describing the difference between his emotions and ours.  Ours are driven by sentiment.  His is not.  I have also told you that God relates to us in ways we understand. 

And God has, and does, control his anger.  Even in the case of the Canaanites, he controlled his anger for at least 400 years.  Look at Israel.  They killed prophet after prophet yet God kept putting up with them.  It was not until they finally killed his very own son that he took the Kingdom from them. 
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #139 on: May 20, 2018, 06:32:39 PM »
Quote
No, Jesus did not encourage folks to stone homosexuals. It is a so-called demand given by Yahweh (Jesus' father).

Jehovah is also the one that instructed Christ.  It is the same God.  "For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken."  (John 12:49)
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4930
  • Darwins +358/-117
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Seeing is believing!
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #140 on: May 21, 2018, 07:51:24 AM »
Quote from: JST

No it's not because they had the teachings of Christ.  But I did say they were either ignorant or....


Hypocrites. Full. Stop.

That IS what YOU SAID.  The rest of your reply is worthless. It is tainted with denial.
That really hurts my feelings. I would not LIE and say you said something you did not say. I even quoted you saying it.

You know you are not dealing with a stupid crowd JST.  My Public Speaking and my ENGLISH instructors both taught to "know your audience".

The buybull does not use the word condemn, it uses the word judge.

The FACT that Yahweh gave commands to stone homosexuals in the OT, and Jesus did nothing to UNDO the law, gays were rejected first.

P1-Yahweh commanded to kill homosexuals.

P2- Jesus did not come to UNDO the law.

C1- Yahweh rejected homosexuals first.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #141 on: May 21, 2018, 08:16:18 AM »
Quote from: JST

No it's not because they had the teachings of Christ.  But I did say they were either ignorant or....


Hypocrites. Full. Stop.

That IS what YOU SAID.  The rest of your reply is worthless. It is tainted with denial.
That really hurts my feelings. I would not LIE and say you said something you did not say. I even quoted you saying it.

You know you are not dealing with a stupid crowd JST.  My Public Speaking and my ENGLISH instructors both taught to "know your audience".

The buybull does not use the word condemn, it uses the word judge.

The FACT that Yahweh gave commands to stone homosexuals in the OT, and Jesus did nothing to UNDO the law, gays were rejected first.

P1-Yahweh commanded to kill homosexuals.

P2- Jesus did not come to UNDO the law.

C1- Yahweh rejected homosexuals first.

You said, "Maybe that's the only way of being they know".  My point in my last post is that I allowed for that possibility by saying they were ignorant or hypocrits.

And I stand by my statement.  Judgment has to do with passing down a sentence.  You are confusing judgment with discernment.  It is possible to discern whether someone is doing right or wrong without passing judgment on them.

Quote
P1-Yahweh commanded to kill homosexuals.

P2- Jesus did not come to UNDO the law.

C1- Yahweh rejected homosexuals first.

Right.  Jesus came to fulfill the law.

"For truly I tell you, 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." (Mt 5:18)

"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." (Mt 5:17)

"Furthermore, though you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of your flesh, God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake." (Col 2:13-14)

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4930
  • Darwins +358/-117
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Seeing is believing!
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #142 on: May 21, 2018, 08:36:44 AM »
Quote
No, Jesus did not encourage folks to stone homosexuals. It is a so-called demand given by Yahweh (Jesus' father).

Jehovah is also the one that instructed Christ.  It is the same God.  "For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken."  (John 12:49)

Did Jesus specifically say, BTW leave homosexuals, redheads, and witches alone AND do not own slaves?

Buybull thumpers cannot even agree on Hell or the Trinity.

What is Yahweh or Jehovah translated? I AM.

Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I am!’ When Jesus said this, the people picked up stones to throw at him. …” (John 8:57-59, NCV, emphasis added).

Revelation 21:8
"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and 
immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part 
will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

What is the consequence for adding to the word of Yahweh?

Revelation 22:18-19 says, "For I testify unto everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, and from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4930
  • Darwins +358/-117
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Seeing is believing!
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #143 on: May 21, 2018, 08:45:12 AM »
Quote from: JST

And I stand by my statement.  Judgment has to do with passing down a sentence.  You are confusing judgment with discernment.  It is possible to discern whether someone is doing right or wrong without passing judgment on them.


I am not confusing a damn thing. You are using words synonymous with each other. See here:

Main Entry: judge

Parts of Speech: verb

Definition: make decision from evidence; deduce

Synonyms: try, draw, resolve, determine, conclude, evaluate, review, appreciate, criticize, assess, put, examine, derive, decide, distinguish, discern, find, consider, deduct, sentence, umpire, rate, value, adjudge, check, condemn, decree, adjudicate, sit, make, approximate, mediate, test, suppose, referee, reckon, estimate, doom, arrive, gather, arbitrate, rule, collect, settle, place, ascertain, appraise, esteem, act on, make out, give a hearing, pass sentence, pronounce sentence, size up


If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4930
  • Darwins +358/-117
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Seeing is believing!
Re: How to Control Your Anger
« Reply #144 on: May 21, 2018, 09:08:39 AM »
Quote from: JST

I have answered, first by describing the difference between his emotions and ours.  Ours are driven by sentiment.  His is not.  I have also told you that God relates to us in ways we understand.  


Are you saying humans are not sentimental to Jehovah?

Are you saying God is not sentimental over obedience?


Quote from: JST

And God has, and does, control his anger.  Even in the case of the Canaanites, he controlled his anger for at least 400 years.  Look at Israel.  They killed prophet after prophet yet God kept putting up with them.  It was not until they finally killed his very own son that he took the Kingdom from them. 


God did not control his anger when he flooded the earth, when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, in the book of Revelations, when he let loose 2 female bears to maul 42 boys, when he condemned Adam and Eve, when Lucifer rebelled. The buybull is full of stories about God's wrath. Please quit pretending that it does not.

My problem is not with God; my problem is with the bible, the Quran,  the Torah. Religious text in general. Why? Because they are cruel and Jesus did Not make it better.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman