Author Topic: Unanswered Questions  (Read 245 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Unanswered Questions
« on: June 09, 2018, 07:59:58 PM »
I am posting this here to consolidate and save time.  When I became involved in so many threads I had more free time than I do at this time.  I don't want to leave questions unanswered.  Sometimes boredom gets the best of me so I post in more threads than I really should.  My apologies to those that have been kind to me.  I will try to prevent this going forward.

Also, having to take the time to read through and reply to posts that contain extraneous remarks is both frustrating and time consuming.  Hopefully posting here will minimize that.

So I have requests for those that have yet to be answered.  Please post your question here.  I will take posters on a first come first serve basis and I want to answer all of those poster's questions before moving to the next so I ask that you do not ask further questions until I've been able to catch up with everyone.

Thank you for your patience.   
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: Unanswered Questions
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2018, 05:35:08 PM »
JST,

Are you going to answer my question:

Why is a disfellowshiped husband not allowed to have bible study with his family?

Because they don't practice his religion or he has gone back to practicing sin.

Why would anyone let someone lead a Bible study that practices a different religion?  It would be like me allowing a Calvanist to lead my Bible study or a Calvanist allowing me to conduct their Bible study.  That just doesn't make any sense.

Quote
The church analogy is a fail because the man is not the head of his church as he is his home. It is another comparison fallacy.

As I told you before, husbandly headship is not abosolute.  The head of the husband is Christ.  If he steps out of his place then the wife must shoulder it all.

Quote
YES! Stats do show the success or failure of a program.

Well from what has been posted around here it's about a 33% reinstatment rate. 

Quote
I agree that there is much pollution harming the planet. I just do not think it proves your point about modern morals.  You need to show how many people have suffered and died as a direct result of pollution.

Why do you I need to show that?  Do you think it's possible that ancient man died more often from the industrial pollution that wasn't even present.  Did they deplete the ozone?

Quote
People that do not vote, do not get to complain. Democrats care about pollution. If the million, or two, JWs voted Democrat vital regulations would not be undone by Trump.

Some JWs may vote.

I am not complaining.
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: Unanswered Questions
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2018, 08:12:30 AM »
Quote from: JST
As I told you before, husbandly headship is not abosolute.  The head of the husband is Christ.  If he steps out of his place then the wife must shoulder it all.


I understand that satisfies your reasoning, but due to Ephesians 5:22-24 I hope you understand why I am not satisfied.  There is also James 1:20, James 1:27, 1 Peter 5:9-15.

Quote from: JST

Well from what has been posted around here it's about a 33% reinstatment rate. 


Is there a source you can cite with the 33% success rate you reported please?

Quote from: JST

Why do you I need to show that?  Do you think it's possible that ancient man died more often from the industrial pollution that wasn't even present.  Did they deplete the ozone?


Are you familiar with The Paris Agreement? It really seems to me nations are trying to clean up. I believe it is due to modern morals that the task is taken.

Quote from: JST

Some JWs may vote. 

I am not complaining.


Can you empathize with the position: if you do not vote, your opinion is moot? It's like watching a house burn down, and doing nothing to save it, IMHO.
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: Unanswered Questions
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2018, 02:11:20 PM »
I understand that satisfies your reasoning, but due to Ephesians 5:22-24 I hope you understand why I am not satisfied.  There is also James 1:20, James 1:27, 1 Peter 5:9-15.

But as Ephesians 5 shows, everything belongs in it's order.  Wifely submission is not absolute just like obedience to the "superior authorities" is not absolute.  Such authority is only to be accepted if it is within God's commands.  If there is a conflict then Christians must "obey God as ruler rather than man" like when the "superior authorities" commanded the apostles to quit preaching (Acts 5:29) which is exactly what the Russian authorities have told Witnesses.  They didn't obey Hitler, they're not going to obey Putin either.

If your husband commands you to commit murder, you don't obey that because God's authority is greater.  The same it true with all of God's commands.  All acceptable authority must fall under God's umbrella because he is actually the head.

Quote
Is there a source you can cite with the 33% success rate you reported please?

No, it was just something I read that someone here posted from JWfacts, a anti-Witness site. 

Quote
Are you familiar with The Paris Agreement? It really seems to me nations are trying to clean up. I believe it is due to modern morals that the task is taken.

Yes, I am familiar with it.  I do not think it is the result of morals but of survival.  It is required because of the lack of morals. 

I mean for some it may be a moral issue, but it's not morals that are making the governments act and from what I have heard, we are reaching the point of no return.  And I am just not confident the world powers can even put aside there differences to fight a common enemy especially if it means changing the balance of power.

Quote
Can you empathize with the position: if you do not vote, your opinion is moot? It's like watching a house burn down, and doing nothing to save it, IMHO.

No.  Because someone does not vote does not invalidate their opinion.

Besides, who would I vote for?  If I don't like the candidates then what else is there for me to do but withhold my vote?   And the people are never asked anything that really matters.  When was the last time they consulted the people about the budget?  Wars?  Bailouts?  Sanctions?  The Paris Climate Agreement?  Do you really think you have any say in government?     
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: Unanswered Questions
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2018, 08:14:20 AM »
Quote from: JST

But as Ephesians 5 shows, everything belongs in it's order.  Wifely submission is not absolute just like obedience to the "superior authorities" is not absolute.  Such authority is only to be accepted if it is within God's commands.  If there is a conflict then Christians must "obey God as ruler rather than man" like when the "superior authorities" commanded the apostles to quit preaching (Acts 5:29) which is exactly what the Russian authorities have told Witnesses.  They didn't obey Hitler, they're not going to obey Putin either.


Ephesians 5 does not place Christ in charge of the home. It compares the husband's rule over his home to Christ's rule over the church.

The quote that spawned this question of mine gives the impression the husband still believes, but not in JW doctrine. He prays over their food, and wants to lead bible study.

Will you please consider the other verses I shared with you? Thanks.

Russia is well known for their hard stand against religion. I like freedom better.

Quote from: JST

If your husband commands you to commit murder, you don't obey that because God's authority is greater.  The same it true with all of God's commands.  All acceptable authority must fall under God's umbrella because he is actually the head.


We are not talking about murder. I am asking why the husband cannot lead bible study.

Quote from: JST

No, it was just something I read that someone here posted from JWfacts, a anti-Witness site. 


The reason to cite a credible source is so the reader can track down your source, to avoid plagiarism, and to add credibility to your argument.

Know your audience. You are conversing with skeptics who were trained to cite sources.

The reason population matters is this: say 92 of 100 people died in Noah's flood. That is 92% of the population. Now let's say 92 out of 1000 people died from hunger. That is 9.2% of the population.

You cannot compare x and y without the math.

Please Google ethos, pathos, and logos. These 3 components make a strong argument.

Quote from: JST

Yes, I am familiar with it.  I do not think it is the result of morals but of survival.  It is required because of the lack of morals.  

I mean for some it may be a moral issue, but it's not morals that are making the governments act and from what I have heard, we are reaching the point of no return.  And I am just not confident the world powers can even put aside there differences to fight a common enemy especially if it means changing the balance of power.


It is moral to protect the planet.

The Paris Agreement does not change the balance of power. It requires reduction in the carbon footprint of nations.

Doing nothing is being complacent to immoral actions.

Quote from: JST

No.  Because someone does not vote does not invalidate their opinion.

Besides, who would I vote for?  If I don't like the candidates then what else is there for me to do but withhold my vote?   And the people are never asked anything that really matters.  When was the last time they consulted the people about the budget?  Wars?  Bailouts?  Sanctions?  The Paris Climate Agreement?  Do you really think you have any say in government? 


Moot and validate have different definitions. I validated your opinion by agreeing with you. You moot your opinion by not voting.

As an individual I do not have much say, but as part of a large group of people my voice does matter.

I am not helpless, and refuse to view myself as such.

I know you did not mention healthcare, but would you say the people were/are being heard concerning healthcare?

I did not like my choice in 2016. I voted my conscience, as usual.
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: Unanswered Questions
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2018, 03:43:40 PM »
Ephesians 5 does not place Christ in charge of the home. It compares the husband's rule over his home to Christ's rule over the church.

The quote that spawned this question of mine gives the impression the husband still believes, but not in JW doctrine. He prays over their food, and wants to lead bible study.

Will you please consider the other verses I shared with you? Thanks.

I read them.  You are correct in that his disfellowshipping does not override his headship.  As far as she is able the wife should still cooperate.  Certainly she wouldn't want to object to something good he was doing, like helping care of others.  But her submission doesn't extend to her denying her own conscience.

Just like having a right to prayer in his own home he has a right to include his children.  But that doesn't mean the wife should support false religious ideas.  That is not helping anyone.  It's not helping her, her children, her husband, Christ, or God. It's helping foster false religion. 

Looking again at the principles of headship, it starts with God.  If the husband becomes detached from that head then he is no longer part of the body. Think of all of us as angels.

God communicates his will to Christ.  Christ communicates that will to husbands.  Husbands communicate that will to their wives.  As long as it's working in this fashion then a wife should be submissive, just like Christ, and her husband are.  But if the husband stops doing that and starts issuing difference commands then the wife of not obliged to follow if it breaks God's commands.  Her husband's disobedience is not excuse for her own.  God is the only ruler.  Everyone else are messengers.  You do not accept a message from a ruler other than Jehovah.

Quote
Russia is well known for their hard stand against religion. I like freedom better.

Well they're not the only group that gets suppressed in Russia.  On a positive note, from what I have read the Russian Orthodox Church does not support the ban.  Using the Church in power is the most zealous oppressor.

Quote
We are not talking about murder. I am asking why the husband cannot lead bible study.

It's the same principle, just an exaggerated version.  A wife should not follow her husband into false religion nor forsake her own conscience.

Quote
The reason to cite a credible source is so the reader can track down your source, to avoid plagiarism, and to add credibility to your argument.

Know your audience. You are conversing with skeptics who were trained to cite sources.

The reason population matters is this: say 92 of 100 people died in Noah's flood. That is 92% of the population. Now let's say 92 out of 1000 people died from hunger. That is 9.2% of the population.

You cannot compare x and y without the math.

Please Google ethos, pathos, and logos. These 3 components make a strong argument.

While I will probably look those up, I don't want to make a strong argument.  In the least, I want mutual understanding.  Show me you even understand what I am saying then I will be happy.

In the cast of statistics, I don't see how they're important.  Disfellowshipping is not optional depending on the success rates.

Quote
It is moral to protect the planet.

Of course it is.  But that does not mean that morality is the motivator.  If it was a matter of morality, I think it would have been acted on before it became life and death.

Quote
Doing nothing is being complacent to immoral actions.

Of course it is.  But having the appearance of morality doesn't maker it moral.  Sometimes what is moral and what is necessary for survival is the same thing.  Since there was not action, and still not action, until it becomes a matter of survival, that survival is the motivator, not morality.

Quote
The Paris Agreement does not change the balance of power. It requires reduction in the carbon footprint of nations.

I don't know if it will or not.  I'm just saying that could be a reason Trump rejects it.  Or maybe because it will mean money will come out of his pocket.  I do see how it could potentially disrupt the balance of power.  Change takes money.  Money spent there could be money spent elsewhere for more strategic, and not environmental reasons.

Quote
I know you did not mention healthcare, but would you say the people were/are being heard concerning healthcare?

Well I guess some people are.  But if they really wanted to listen to the people then why not just put the issue up for a vote and be done with it?

Quote
I did not like my choice in 2016. I voted my conscience, as usual.

Well I find that I lean more toward democrats than republicans.  And in voting for candidates it's like you have to vote for things you don't want just to vote for things you do want. 

I was all for tax breaks for the wealthy.  I'm for tax breaks of all kinds, for the rich, the poor, and everywhere in between.  If there is a tax break then I'm for it.  Building a wall between us and Mexico?  Not so much.

And no, I don't think the people are being heard about healthcare.  None of the people.  Neither side is happy.  He is what I have against politics.  It's debate after debate and vote after vote and nothing gets done and what does get done, gets undone.  Maybe that's a good thing.

"The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty" (Eugene McCarthy). 
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: Unanswered Questions
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2018, 08:46:43 AM »
Quote from: JST

I read them.  You are correct in that his disfellowshipping does not override his headship.  As far as she is able the wife should still cooperate.  Certainly she wouldn't want to object to something good he was doing, like helping care of others.  But her submission doesn't extend to her denying her own conscience.


Is having prayer and Bible study a bad thing that would bother her conscience?

Will you please regard the other verses I shared? Thank you.

Also, I still do not accept disfellowship as not judging others. That is exactly what it is; judging. An individual is found guilty and sentenced.

Quote from: JST

Just like having a right to prayer in his own home he has a right to include his children.  But that doesn't mean the wife should support false religious ideas.  That is not helping anyone.  It's not helping her, her children, her husband, Christ, or God. It's helping foster false religion.


Maybe his version is less harmful than yours? Maybe he doesn't agree with the disfellowshiping practice because he loves his wife and children very much. Maybe he wants to celebrate birthdays and Christmas? He is not growing rotten fruit.

Quote from: JST

Looking again at the principles of headship, it starts with God.  If the husband becomes detached from that head then he is no longer part of the body. Think of all of us as angels.

God communicates his will to Christ.  Christ communicates that will to husbands.  Husbands communicate that will to their wives.  As long as it's working in this fashion then a wife should be submissive, just like Christ, and her husband are.  But if the husband stops doing that and starts issuing difference commands then the wife of not obliged to follow if it breaks God's commands.  Her husband's disobedience is not excuse for her own.  God is the only ruler.  Everyone else are messengers.  You do not accept a message from a ruler other than Jehovah.


This man believes he is following the revelation of God by disagreeing with JW disfellowshiping rules and celebrating birthdays and Christmas. He is not an evildoers.

This all sounds like religion (JW) ruling this man's home instead of him.

If you are prepared to say the only true religion is JW, then you have a burden of proof.

Quote from: JST

It's the same principle, just an exaggerated version.  A wife should not follow her husband into false religion nor forsake her own conscience.


Did you read the link to the comparison fallacy?

Are you prepared to provide evidence for your burden of proof that JW is the one true religion?

Quote from: JST

While I will probably look those up, I don't want to make a strong argument.  In the least, I want mutual understanding.  Show me you even understand what I am saying then I will be happy.

In the cast of statistics, I don't see how they're important.  Disfellowshipping is not optional depending on the success rates.


I understand exactly what you are saying. It's just that it does not meet the criteria for logical reasoning. It's more like mental gymnastics. For example, you said Jesus' command to not judge others means not to pass down a sentence; yet here you are defending handing down a sentence.

If you want to be believed you have to follow the rules of logic.

Quote from: JST

Of course it is.  But that does not mean that morality is the motivator.  If it was a matter of morality, I think it would have been acted on before it became life and death.


Is it moral to jump in the river to save a drowning child? Does the fact that it was not life or death before the child fell in the  river lessen the moral action?

Quote from: JST

Of course it is.  But having the appearance of morality doesn't maker it moral.  Sometimes what is moral and what is necessary for survival is the same thing.  Since there was not action, and still not action, until it becomes a matter of survival, that survival is the motivator, not morality.


Are you saying the only way to take a moral action is when there is no survival intent?

That would make having babies immoral? You have babies to assure survival of the human specie.

Witnessing would not be moral because to the witnesser, it is a matter of life and death.

Quote from: JST

I don't know if it will or not.  I'm just saying that could be a reason Trump rejects it.  Or maybe because it will mean money will come out of his pocket.  I do see how it could potentially disrupt the balance of power.  Change takes money.  Money spent there could be money spent elsewhere for more strategic, and not environmental reasons.


That needs a citation.

Quote from: JST

Well I guess some people are.  But if they really wanted to listen to the people then why not just put the issue up for a vote and be done with it?


Congress put it up for a vote twice. The will of the people prevailed. Easily Googled.

Quote from: JST

Well I find that I lean more toward democrats than republicans.  And in voting for candidates it's like you have to vote for things you don't want just to vote for things you do want.  

I was all for tax breaks for the wealthy.  I'm for tax breaks of all kinds, for the rich, the poor, and everywhere in between.  If there is a tax break then I'm for it.  Building a wall between us and Mexico?  Not so much.

And no, I don't think the people are being heard about healthcare.  None of the people.  Neither side is happy.  He is what I have against politics.  It's debate after debate and vote after vote and nothing gets done and what does get done, gets undone.  Maybe that's a good thing.

"The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty" (Eugene McCarthy).


If saving the planet is your thing, Democrats will look good to you.

If tax breaks is your thing, Republicans is your party. Only thing about tax cuts is that money is needed to support poor people with healthcare, food, and shelter. I believe it is moral to care for the poor. I'm one of them. Even when I wasn't I never minded paying taxes.

Bureaucracy gave us civil rights, women rights, the end of slavery, and disability rights. It is not all bad JST. It also gives you the right to be a JW. ;)

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: Unanswered Questions
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2018, 03:08:45 PM »
Is having prayer and Bible study a bad thing that would bother her conscience?

Ultimately it hinges on her conscience.  I wouldn't feel comfortable participating in a Bible study where it's taught that God punishes people by casting them into a place of eternal, conscious torment. 

Quote
Will you please regard the other verses I shared? Thank you.

I did that's why I mentioned that disfellowshipping doesn't severe husbandly headship.  But it's like any other headship other than God's.  It's not absolute.  For example, if a man wants his wife to participate in some form of group sex, she ought not particpate if she wants to please God.  A wife is to be a husband's helper in doing good, not bad.

Quote
Also, I still do not accept disfellowship as not judging others. That is exactly what it is; judging. An individual is found guilty and sentenced.

Yes it is a form of judgment.  It is judged that you no longer fit the criteria for membership.  This entire chapter is about disfellowshipping.  [] mine.

" Actually sexual immorality is reported among you [the congregation], and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2

And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? 3

Although absent in body, I am present in spirit, and I have already judged the man who has done this, as if I were actually with you. 4

When you are gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus, and knowing that I am with you in spirit along with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5

you must hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
6

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven ferments the whole batch of dough? 7

Clear away the old leaven so that you may be a new batch, inasmuch as you are free from ferment. For, indeed, Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed. 8

So, then, let us keep the festival, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of badness and wickedness, but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9

In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10

not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11

But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12

For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13

while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.” (1 Cor 5)

Quote
Maybe his version is less harmful than yours? Maybe he doesn't agree with the disfellowshiping practice because he loves his wife and children very much.

If he loves his wife and children then he won't try to force a religion on them that they don't want, assuming the children are old enough to make a decision. 

Quote
Maybe he wants to celebrate birthdays and Christmas? He is not growing rotten fruit.

If he wants to take up the symbols of other gods and use them in the worship of his own then he is free to do so.  But he is not free to force others to do so.  And that includes me too.  I'm not free to force my religion on others, not even my wife.  Not only that but that's probably about the worst thing you could try to do anyway.  In fact, I think it's positively impossible to force your religion on others.  You might can force them to go through the motions, but that's it.  That's pointless.  People don't generally like anything being forced on them.

Quote
If you are prepared to say the only true religion is JW, then you have a burden of proof.

That would be an odd conversation to have with an atheist.  I am prepared to say that she believes it's the only true religion.  She will view her husband as harming himself by adopting false religion.  How can she, in good conscience, support it?  Her greatest desire will be his resinstatement.

Quote
Did you read the link to the comparison fallacy?

Yes, I know what it is.  It is not a comparison fallacy.  Both are in the same category, sin.  You should not submit if your mate wants you to sin.  That is not love.

Quote
I understand exactly what you are saying. It's just that it does not meet the criteria for logical reasoning. It's more like mental gymnastics. For example, you said Jesus' command to not judge others means not to pass down a sentence; yet here you are defending handing down a sentence.

If you want to be believed you have to follow the rules of logic.

How do statistics prove logical reasoning?  Here is my reasoning:  A little yeast works through the entire batch.  Disfellowshipping is necessary as a protection.

Quote
Is it moral to jump in the river to save a drowning child?

It depends on your motivations.  Are you doing it just so you can appear to be a hero?  Then it wasn't a moral act.

Quote
Are you saying the only way to take a moral action is when there is no survival intent?

No, I'm saying for it to be a moral act it must be morally motivated. 

For example, the religous leaders of Jesus' day he condemned because all of their "good" acts were don't just for appearance.  They were not really good acts because they were done for the wrong reasons.  Jesus compared them to white washed tombs that appear nice on the outside, but on the inside they are full of dead people's bones.  They appeared moral on the outside but on the inside they were anything but.

"You do not have because of your not asking. 3When you do ask, you do not receive because you are asking for a wrong purpose, so that you may spend it on your fleshly desires." (James 4:2,3)

Quote from: jst
I don't know if it will or not.  I'm just saying that could be a reason Trump rejects it.  Or maybe because it will mean money will come out of his pocket.  I do see how it could potentially disrupt the balance of power.  Change takes money.  Money spent there could be money spent elsewhere for more strategic, and not environmental reasons.

Why does this need a citation?  It's just a matter of my opinion. 

Quote
Witnessing would not be moral because to the witnesser, it is a matter of life and death.

That doesn't give you the right to force feed it to your wife and it doesn't mean she should forsake her conscience.  I've told you this in another discussion.  Wifely submittion isn't absolute.  It's not "his way or the highway".  It means do not resist your husband without just cause.  It also means don't try to run rough shot over him.

Quote
Congress put it up for a vote twice. The will of the people prevailed.

When did they ask people do vote about healthcare?

Quote
If saving the planet is your thing, Democrats will look good to you.

If tax breaks is your thing, Republicans is your party. Only thing about tax cuts is that money is needed to support poor people with healthcare, food, and shelter. I believe it is moral to care for the poor. I'm one of them. Even when I wasn't I never minded paying taxes.

I imagine people already pay enough to support the poor.  That's just not how the funds are allocated.

Quote
Bureaucracy gave us civil rights, women rights, the end of slavery, and disability rights. It is not all bad JST. It also gives you the right to be a JW.

Well it was meant to be taken as a slight joke.  But I do think there is some truth to it.  I generally agree.  Every once in a while something gets done but that doesn't make the process efficient.  I can remember the abortion debate when I was a kid.  It's still not settled.

Quote
If saving the planet is your thing, Democrats will look good to you.

If tax breaks is your thing, Republicans is your party. Only thing about tax cuts is that money is needed to support poor people with healthcare, food, and shelter. I believe it is moral to care for the poor. I'm one of them. Even when I wasn't I never minded paying taxes.

Both of those are my things.  Putting more money into the economy can only be a good thing.  While certainly some deserve our charity, I don't generally want to live in a welfare state.  I am an able-bodied man.  I want to support myself and I think I ought too.   The problem is that, even while working, people are being unable to make ends meet.  Everything is just too expensive.  Healthcare is obscenely expensive.  I don't know how insurance companies stay in business. 

If prices were affordable we wouldn't need to much welfare.  Let me break it down for you here in Oklahoma.  Minimum wage 7:25/hr.  That's $1256 monthy gross pay.  For a single person you're looking at not more and $1000 net pay.  If you are willing to slum it, here are some conservative estimates.

Rent $500
Utilities $250 (electric, water, gas)
Auto payment $150
Auto insurace $40
Fuel $80
Food $400

Total $1420

They are just the bare necessities unless you are lucky and can get to work without an automobile.   Even gross pay is not enough.  That's not to mention that many minimum wage jobs only work you 35+ hours.  You're not even gauranteed 40.

GOD FORBID if you have to take a trip to the doctor and are self-pay.  You absolutely cannot afford to get sick or have an accident.  Just darkening the steps of the ER is more than $1000.  $800 for a CT scan.  $5 for couple tylenol.

I had two surgeries that totalled over $100,000.  Prices are the problem.  And if the government could control prices then it wouldn't be trillions of dollars in debt. 
 
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 03:13:49 PM by Jstwebbrowsing »
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: Unanswered Questions
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2018, 10:12:22 AM »
Quote from: JST

Ultimately it hinges on her conscience.  I wouldn't feel comfortable participating in a Bible study where it's taught that God punishes people by casting them into a place of eternal, conscious torment.


You are not his wife. According to Ephesians 5, the husband's rule is as to Christ's rule over the church. If the husband's rule is not absolute, neither then is Christ's. 

This husband is teaching his family the power of love, not hellfire, not sexual immorality. He believes God revealed to him that disfellowshiping is not being Christ-like. That is why he got disfellowshiped. Jesus did not disfellowship anyone.

Quote

I did that's why I mentioned that disfellowshipping doesn't severe husbandly headship.  But it's like any other headship other than God's.  It's not absolute.  For example, if a man wants his wife to participate in some form of group sex, she ought not particpate if she wants to please God.  A wife is to be a husband's helper in doing good, not bad.


P1- Christ's rule over the church is absolute.

P2- The husband's rule is liken unto Christ's rule.

C1-The husband's rule is absolute.

There is always divorce for a wife. :(

Quote

Yes it is a form of judgment.  It is judged that you no longer fit the criteria for membership.  This entire chapter is about disfellowshipping.  [] mine.


It does not really say congregation.

^^Paul is writing this to Pagans. Not members of a religious sect.

Jesus said not to judge. Paul and Jesus are in disagreement with each other.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God is this: To visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself [not others] unspotted from the world. [mine]

James 1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

This man has done none of those things. He merely has come to disagree with the punishment of others.

Quote

If he loves his wife and children then he won't try to force a religion on them that they don't want, assuming the children are old enough to make a decision.


P1- Christ's rule over the church is absolute

P2- A husband's rule over his home is like Christ's rule over the church.

C1-The husband's rule is absolute.

There is always divorce. :(

Quote

If he wants to take up the symbols of other gods and use them in the worship of his own then he is free to do so.  But he is not free to force others to do so.  And that includes me too.  I'm not free to force my religion on others, not even my wife.  Not only that but that's probably about the worst thing you could try to do anyway.  In fact, I think it's positively impossible to force your religion on others.  You might can force them to go through the motions, but that's it.  That's pointless.  People don't generally like anything being forced on them.

P1- Christ's rule over the church is absolute.

P2- The husband's rule is liken unto Christ's rule over the church.

C1- The husband's rule is absolute.

There is always divorce. :(

Quote

That would be an odd conversation to have with an atheist.  I am prepared to say that she believes it's the only true religion.  She will view her husband as harming himself by adopting false religion.  How can she, in good conscience, support it?  Her greatest desire will be his resinstatement.

That husband has the right to persuade her. That wife has no rights. She must obey and revere her husband according to scripture.
                      OR
There is always divorce.  :(

Why is that an odd conversation to have with an atheist? After all, if you can prove it; it would change my mind.

Quote

Yes, I know what it is.  It is not a comparison fallacy.  Both are in the same category, sin.  You should not submit if your mate wants you to sin.  That is not love.


Shunning people over doctrinal disagreement is not love.

Comparing doctrinal disagreement to murder or sexual immorality is a comparison fallacy whether you like that or not. Telling a lie is not as bad as murder, stealing, or assault. Stealing is not as bad as murder. Non-belief is not as bad as murder. Adultery is not as bad as murder or rape.

If there is a God, I would expect it to know the difference.

Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man. (Thomas Paine)

Quote

How do statistics prove logical reasoning?  Here is my reasoning:  A little yeast works through the entire batch.  Disfellowshipping is necessary as a protection.


I gather you did not Google ethos, pathos, and logos. :(

You have 2 conclusions up there not premises.

Statistics help support a claim like: Ancient morals are better than modern morals.
Just saying it does not make it factual.

Quote
It depends on your motivations.  Are you doing it just so you can appear to be a hero?  Then it wasn't a moral act.


This comes across as just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. :(

By the time a person decides how it will affect their image, the child is lost to the river! Geez!

It's not even possible to rescue another human without being considered a hero. Geez!

To follow your logic, there is no moral behaviors. Being a JW is not moral because you want to live in the new kingdom.

Quote

No, I'm saying for it to be a moral act it must be morally motivated.  

For example, the religous leaders of Jesus' day he condemned because all of their "good" acts were don't just for appearance.  They were not really good acts because they were done for the wrong reasons.  Jesus compared them to white washed tombs that appear nice on the outside, but on the inside they are full of dead people's bones.  They appeared moral on the outside but on the inside they were anything but.

"You do not have because of your not asking. 3When you do ask, you do not receive because you are asking for a wrong purpose, so that you may spend it on your fleshly desires." (James 4:2,3)


Then being a JW is not morally motivated because you expect a reward of a new kingdom.

Every action has a reaction whether by implicit or explicit sources.

You are literally arguing there is no such thing as morality. Even Christ's crucifixion was not moral, because he inherits a throne.

God cannot be moral, because he is motivated by worship.

I can come up with a motivation other than morality for any good deed you send my way. Try it?

I am limited to 500 words. I cannot address the political opinion you shared. ;)

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: Unanswered Questions
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2018, 04:17:09 PM »
You are not his wife. According to Ephesians 5, the husband's rule is as to Christ's rule over the church. If the husband's rule is not absolute, neither then is Christ's.

You are quite correct.  The head of Christ is God.  Everything is relative to Jehovah's will.

Quote
This husband is teaching his family the power of love, not hellfire, not sexual immorality. He believes God revealed to him that disfellowshiping is not being Christ-like. That is why he got disfellowshiped. Jesus did not disfellowship anyone.

Yes, actually Jesus did.  He disfellowshipped the religious leaders.  The only time he spoke to them was in reproof.

Quote
P1- Christ's rule over the church is absolute.

P2- The husband's rule is liken unto Christ's rule.

C1-The husband's rule is absolute.

Jehovah is the only absolute authority.  Liken it to the military.  You are supposed to obey your superiors.  But what if there is a conflict?  Who do you obey, the General, or the Sergeant?

Quote
It does not really say congregation.

Yes it does.  "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours" (1 Cor 1:2).

Quote
James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God is this: To visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself [not others] unspotted from the world. [mine]

James 1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

This man has done none of those things. He merely has come to disagree with the punishment of others.

Pure worship also revolves around the truth.  "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). It is not okay to just make up your own beliefs and disregard the teachings of the apostles.


Quote
That husband has the right to persuade her. That wife has no rights. She must obey and revere her husband according to scripture.

Persuading her is one thing.  Forcing it on her is another.  "My husband made me do it" is not an excuse.  She is there to help him do good, not bad.  If she is helping him do bad then she's not doing her job as a wife.

Quote
There is always divorce for a wife.

For the husband or the wife, the only scriptural grounds for divorce is "porneo" which is gross sexual immorality.

Quote
Why is that an odd conversation to have with an atheist? After all, if you can prove it; it would change my mind.

It would be odd because it's based on the premise that there is one true God.  How could you convince someone there is one true religion that doesn't even believe in God?  It's like putting the cart before the horse.  I can show you that the Bible teaches there is only one true religion.  Identifying that religion is a matter of faith.

Quote
Shunning people over doctrinal disagreement is not love.

You keep missing one thing.  If you have a doctrinal disagreement then why are you a JW in the first place?  That just doesn't make any sense.  Why would you agree to the terms if you really disagree?  "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?" (Luke 14:28).  In like manner, before becoming baptized one ought to make sure thay're able to follow through with the commitment.

Even then, as I've said before, simply disagreeing with doctrine will not get you disfelloshipped.  Trying to convert others will get you disfellowshipped.   

Quote
Comparing doctrinal disagreement to murder or sexual immorality is a comparison fallacy whether you like that or not. Telling a lie is not as bad as murder, stealing, or assault. Stealing is not as bad as murder. Non-belief is not as bad as murder. Adultery is not as bad as murder or rape.

Yes, there are different severities of sin.  But both stealing and murder fall under the category of sin.  They are both wrong, one is just more severe than the other.  The only categorical difference is the severity.  The flu is more severe than a cold but they are both sicknesses.

Quote
I gather you did not Google ethos, pathos, and logos.

You have 2 conclusions up there not premises.

No I have not yet.  Is this what you are looking for?

P1 A little yeast works through the whole batch.
P2  I don't want yeast worked through the whole batch.
C1  I must not allow even a little yeast into the batch.

P1 A little sin works through the whole congregation.
P2  I don't want sin to work through the congregation.
C1  I must not allow sin into the congregation.
P3  Disfellowshipping removes sin from the congregation.
C2  Disfellowshipping is a necessary protection.

Quote
Statistics help support a claim like: Ancient morals are better than modern morals.
Just saying it does not make it factual.

But sometimes the evidence is obvious.  According to scientists, humans are literally destroying the earth's ability to sustain life.  I consider that a moral issue.  There is no evidence ancient man ever did that.

Quote
This comes across as just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

By the time a person decides how it will affect their image, the child is lost to the river! Geez!

It's not even possible to rescue another human without being considered a hero. Geez!

To follow your logic, there is no moral behaviors. Being a JW is not moral because you want to live in the new kingdom.

Jehovah weighs thoughts and motivations.  Neither does Christ judge by "mere appearance".  Just because something may appear on the surface to be good or bad, doesn't make it so. 

And you are correct.  If I want to be a Christian simply for the things I can get out of God then I have the wrong motivations.  That's what Satan accused Job of doing.  That's why he made the accusation, because he knew those would be the wrong motivations and would meet with Jehovah's disapproval.

The right reason to do good is love.  Just going through the motions is not enough. 

Quote
Then being a JW is not morally motivated because you expect a reward of a new kingdom.

The two do not have to be mutally exclusive.  There is nothing wrong with being recognized for saving a life and who doesnt' like recognition.  But if that recognition is the ONLY reason you are doing it, or the primary reason your are doing it then it's not a moral act even though it was beneficial.  You are only appearing to be an "angel of light".  Appearances aren't what matters to God.  It's the "spirit" in which it's done.

Likewise, it is not wrong to want to live under God's kingdom, but if reward is the only reason you are going through the motions then you have missed the mark. 

And I do question myself.  Do I want God's Kingdom to come because it will provide relief for mankind or do I want it to come so I can personally profit?  I would be lying if I said I don't want to live under that kingdom, but I certainly wouldn't want God to withold it's arrival on account of me.  That is a horrible thought.

Job was an example of a man that loved God unconditionally, proving Satan's accusation false.
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: Unanswered Questions
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2018, 09:09:16 AM »
You are not his wife. According to Ephesians 5, the husband's rule is as to Christ's rule over the church. If the husband's rule is not absolute, neither then is Christ's.

You are quite correct.  The head of Christ is God.  Everything is relative to Jehovah's will.

Why would Christ have a different will than Jehovah?


Quote
This husband is teaching his family the power of love, not hellfire, not sexual immorality. He believes God revealed to him that disfellowshiping is not being Christ-like. That is why he got disfellowshiped. Jesus did not disfellowship anyone.

Quote from: JST
Yes, actually Jesus did.  He disfellowshipped the religious leaders.  The only time he spoke to them was in reproof.

Jesus did not disfellowship the religious leaders, they disfellowshiped him.


Quote
P1- Christ's rule over the church is absolute.

P2- The husband's rule is liken unto Christ's rule.

C1-The husband's rule is absolute.

Quote from: JST
Jehovah is the only absolute authority.  Liken it to the military.  You are supposed to obey your superiors.  But what if there is a conflict?  Who do you obey, the General, or the Sergeant?

Your conscience. 

You are also begging the question-> why would Jesus and Yahweh be at odds with each other? I don't even get why you're taking me down this rabbit hole. :) According to scripture, it is Jehovah's will for the husband to rule his wife.

The only way, according to scripture, to judge a false religion is by its fruit. Believing in LOVE is rotten, HOW?


Quote
It does not really say congregation.

Quote from: JST
Yes it does.  "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours" (1 Cor 1:2).

That's a different verse.

Quote
James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God is this: To visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself [not others] unspotted from the world. [mine]

James 1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

This man has done none of those things. He merely has come to disagree with the punishment of others.

Quote from: JST
Pure worship also revolves around the truth.  "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). It is not okay to just make up your own beliefs and disregard the teachings of the apostles.

That verse does not support what you are suggesting. That verse I shared is from an apostle.

What did Jesus say when the Pharisees asked him what the most important commandment is? He sure did not say disfellowshiping people.

Through my lens, disfellowshiping is not love, according to the definition in Corinthians.

This confidence you have concerning God is quite arrogant. It's no surprise because religious leaders are quite arrogant.

You are not appealing to God's authority, you are appealing to JW authority.

Quote
That husband has the right to persuade her. That wife has no rights. She must obey and revere her husband according to scripture.

Quote from: JST
Persuading her is one thing.  Forcing it on her is another.  "My husband made me do it" is not an excuse.  She is there to help him do good, not bad.  If she is helping him do bad then she's not doing her job as a wife.


That works both ways JST. When a wife punishes her husband for rejecting JW doctrine, she is by default trying to force her beliefs upon him.

Quote
There is always divorce for a wife.

Quote from: JST
For the husband or the wife, the only scriptural grounds for divorce is "porneo" which is gross sexual immorality.


Irreconcilable differences is a valid reason for divorce. Where does God give the church the right to create irreconcilable differences?

Quote
Why is that an odd conversation to have with an atheist? After all, if you can prove it; it would change my mind.

Quote from: JST
It would be odd because it's based on the premise that there is one true God.  How could you convince someone there is one true religion that doesn't even believe in God?  It's like putting the cart before the horse.  I can show you that the Bible teaches there is only one true religion.  Identifying that religion is a matter of faith.

My mind is NOT set in stone. That belongs to you.

Quote
Shunning people over doctrinal disagreement is not love.

Quote from: JST
You keep missing one thing.  If you have a doctrinal disagreement then why are you a JW in the first place?  That just doesn't make any sense.  Why would you agree to the terms if you really disagree?  "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?" (Luke 14:28).  In like manner, before becoming baptized one ought to make sure thay're able to follow through with the commitment.

I have not left that out. You cannot pretend like certain things cannot change a person's mind. We can say this man grew up as JW. We can say his mother was disfellowshiped, and that is why he started to doubt his religion.



Quote from: JST
Even then, as I've said before, simply disagreeing with doctrine will not get you disfelloshipped.  Trying to convert others will get you disfellowshipped.

The source I shared with you did not say that. I cannot imagine how that works. Are you allowed to debate doctrine?

Quote
Comparing doctrinal disagreement to murder or sexual immorality is a comparison fallacy whether you like that or not. Telling a lie is not as bad as murder, stealing, or assault. Stealing is not as bad as murder. Non-belief is not as bad as murder. Adultery is not as bad as murder or rape.

Quote from: JST
Yes, there are different severities of sin.  But both stealing and murder fall under the category of sin.  They are both wrong, one is just more severe than the other.  The only categorical difference is the severity.  The flu is more severe than a cold but they are both sicknesses.

Which is why it is a comparison fallacy. If a court treats a thief like a murderer then justice is not found. If a doctor treats you for a cold when you have the flu, you will not get better.

Quote
I gather you did not Google ethos, pathos, and logos.

You have 2 conclusions up there not premises.

Quote from: JST
No I have not yet.  Is this what you are looking for?

P1 A little yeast works through the whole batch.
P2  I don't want yeast worked through the whole batch.
C1  I must not allow even a little yeast into the batch.

P1 A little sin works through the whole congregation.
P2  I don't want sin to work through the congregation.
C1  I must not allow sin into the congregation.
P3  Disfellowshipping removes sin from the congregation.
C2  Disfellowshipping is a necessary protection.

No JST. That is not what I'm looking for. You have conclusions in your premises.

Quote
Statistics help support a claim like: Ancient morals are better than modern morals.
Just saying it does not make it factual.

Quote from: JST
But sometimes the evidence is obvious.  According to scientists, humans are literally destroying the earth's ability to sustain life.  I consider that a moral issue.  There is no evidence ancient man ever did that.

What things do humans do that are destroying this planet?
It is not as obvious as you make it seem. I think due process is a lot better than stoning people.

Are there people fighting for the health of our planet? You cannot ignore that.

You can say that polluting the earth is immoral, where you and the atheists here part ways is when you say ancient morals were/are better. What ancient moral, not in use today, would condemn pollution?

You know, cow and chicken manure are big contributors to pollution. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209631730027X

Who made eating a thing? Who made cows, chickens, pigs, goats, etc.? Who wants humans to be fruitful and multiply? I strongly suggest looking in the mirror.

Quote
This comes across as just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

By the time a person decides how it will affect their image, the child is lost to the river! Geez!

It's not even possible to rescue another human without being considered a hero. Geez!

To follow your logic, there is no moral behaviors. Being a JW is not moral because you want to live in the new kingdom.

Quote from: JST
Jehovah weighs thoughts and motivations.  Neither does Christ judge by "mere appearance".  Just because something may appear on the surface to be good or bad, doesn't make it so. 

And you are correct.  If I want to be a Christian simply for the things I can get out of God then I have the wrong motivations.  That's what Satan accused Job of doing.  That's why he made the accusation, because he knew those would be the wrong motivations and would meet with Jehovah's disapproval.

The right reason to do good is love.  Just going through the motions is not enough.

No matter what you do, you cannot escape the reward.

Quote
Then being a JW is not morally motivated because you expect a reward of a new kingdom.

Quote from: JST
The two do not have to be mutally exclusive.  There is nothing wrong with being recognized for saving a life and who doesnt' like recognition.  But if that recognition is the ONLY reason you are doing it, or the primary reason your are doing it then it's not a moral act even though it was beneficial.  You are only appearing to be an "angel of light".  Appearances aren't what matters to God.  It's the "spirit" in which it's done.

Likewise, it is not wrong to want to live under God's kingdom, but if reward is the only reason you are going through the motions then you have missed the mark.

No matter what you do, you cannot escape the recognition from Yahweh.

Quote from: JST
And I do question myself.  Do I want God's Kingdom to come because it will provide relief for mankind or do I want it to come so I can personally profit?  I would be lying if I said I don't want to live under that kingdom, but I certainly wouldn't want God to withold it's arrival on account of me.  That is a horrible thought.

Nevertheless, you want that kingdom. You will not give up your chance to live in that kingdom. Does Jesus not say something about those that try to save their life losing their life?

Quote from: JST
Job was an example of a man that loved God unconditionally, proving Satan's accusation false.

You are not Job.

Job loved God because God is God. If God was not God, Job would not have loved him. Job did not love God unconditionally. You do not love God unconditionally.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman