More and more muslims are converting to the true faith (Jehovah's Witnesses)https://raseef22.net/english/article/1090585-a-rare-glimpse-into-the-secretive-world-of-jehovahs-witnesses-in-jordanhttps://wwrn.org/articles/3255/https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2008/06/18/arabic-speakers-extend-jehovahs-witnesses-reach/http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/5/the-rise-of-mormonsandjehovahaswitnessesinthecaucasus.htmlHow come ?
am i having a stroke
>>18488109May piss be upon that false teacher Charles Taze Russell(pbuh)'s grave for he said that only 144k will make it, and that Jesus has always been nothing more than a mighty angel (/x/- AND HE WILL FALL AND BECOME LUCIFER AND THEN SATAN OVER AND OVER AGAIN!)
>>18488109>It's in a language she does not speakThere are various english translations available online, notably Marmaduke Pickthall, M. A. S Haleem, A.J Arberry and clear-Quran.>She makes a conscious choice to baptiseRather she has been conditioned into affirming the doctrines of a faith she grew up in, without ever engaging with it's dogma. Islam already recognises this in it's divine pragamitism.>Zahra goes door to door preaching the gospelAlright. Why doesn't she do onlyfans like Safira?
>>18488117The Bible says 144,000 people will be priests and kings in heaven with Christ, they will rule over paradise earth where most of mankind will live forever Jesus is more than a mighty angel, he is the only-begotten Son of Jehovah, and Jehovah made him Lord and King>>18488119>Alright. Why doesn't she do onlyfans like Safira?Because she is a Christian and Christians don't do that :)
>>18488125>>18488119nothing you say has any worth, child molester
>>18488119To add, isn't this the criticism lodged against the orthodox church's faith-through-grace following Paulinian Soteriology? Muslims don't believe that, we believe in a balance of grace and works, in a rejection of Augustine's orginal-sin doctrine. God has made men of purity (fitrah) and, as such the ability to discern and do good within are within our capacity, we are filly capable of becoming righteous.
>>18488127your faith is as hollow as your character. Jesus would rebuke you if he walked this earth.
>>18488131I didn't say I was christian but at least I don't have a pedophile prophet
>>18488134Oh you're hindu. To be quite frank, I don't want to respond in earnest. Feel free to post what you want under my posts.Buddhists are nice however.
>>18488137I rest my casehttps://wikiislam.net/wiki/Child_Marriage_in_the_Qur%27an
>>18488134>The Father wants to send his son to Earth>His son created all of the universe>He chooses an underage girl>Impregnates her with his son>No consent whatsoeverB...but Mary said let it be done!>Only submitted to the reality she was faced with AFTER the angel informed her what happened>The Father impregnates an underage girl with his Son who also created that very underage girlWho is the real pedophile here...?
>>18488194>underage girlChapter and verse ?
>>18488224Oh so when it's your book, we need to be scholars, but when it's someone else's book, unfair charicatures and pejoratives are fair game, I see! How consistent
>>18488257Denounce the sunnah
>>18488263Denounce the Church Fathers
>>18488266I denounce the church fathersYour turn
>>18488266Religious zealots suffer from OCD This why you don't have rational debates with religious people expecting them to admit they are wrong.You can't convince a mentally ill person to change how their brain motivates by just reason. The very next day their brain will have defaulted to it's lazy state...This is why you get silly little rituals or absolutely crazy religious story about jesus being a lamb or something burning bushes and all... It's all made up by crazy people and believed by others with serious mental laziness...I remember being taught the shit in the bible as a child and it was so unrealistic I thought it was just some important cultural capeshit like star wars or something...To teach someone religion you have to take root in their illogical and addictive places like the ones in depressed people, in people that have been indoctrinated, retards, the clinically insane
>>18488322Bro thought he sounded smart when he wrote this
>>18488297>Get anonymous biographies of Jesus, letters from Paul and others, and put them all in a pile>Read them and examine them>Decide which is true divine revelation and what is notHow?>Personal sense of which text is divine and authentic and which is not dictates the result>Everything that seems probably true gets compiled into a book>Be the BibleA mystery remains...who actually decided which wiring was authentic and which was not, and how could they tell it was divine?>The Church Fathers of course!How can they be trusted to determine what is divine without questioning their capabilities?>The Holy Spirit guided them!What is the evidence for this?>They were righteous people!Even though there are other righteous people that we don't deem as capable of infallibly determining truth?>They're special!Even though you condemned them?>You are [insert pejorative here]!Christbros...explain yourselves.
>>18488322Religion can be logically derived, you just can't be Christian because so much of it results in contradiction. Have you considered other religious texts?
>>18488322>>18488371Enjoy Hell
>>18488379>>18488366Engage with this criticism.God does not command contradiction.
Jehovah's witnesses knock on too many doors that's why nobody wants to convert to their religion.
>>18488452Praise Jehovah
>>18488452It's somewhat admirable, or maybe it is that I haven't experienced their sneaky tactics before.Having a chat at the door about religion or theology? Only a socially anxious person would be afraid. If one's beliefs are merely inherited cultural dressing, then they should be challenged.>>18488494Well you're given the platform here, tell the christian men exactly why your religion is superior, excluding historic controversies.
>>18488371I have seriously considered not filling the gaps in my knowledge with retarded myths that violate Occam's razorSince then I have suffered less anxiety as I am a bpd person so it was beneficial.I would really enjoy social gatherings with rituals if the basis for it was not raping away my freedom and enforcing normative laws based on shit like magic explanationsI heard swifties are like this but I hate their music...I should find my niche
>>18488530I mean, you can derive God's existence and His Goodness from 1=1, with a few metaphysical principles sprinkled in here and there. If you consider yourself intellectual, it's a rational absurdity to reject the idea of a Good God who made a world that makes sense.
>>18488523>>18488494So wait I'm watching a video about you guys. You are against blood transfusions? What? >Don't join the armyBased. undermining St. Augustine's just-war doctrine. Which in retrospect was a later development that evolved out of the need for self-defensive (and later offensive) wars, as christindom became a polity (Rome). I think early church fathers were explicitly against serving in the Roman army. Pre-Constantine, they said even the soldiers joining the army must not kill.The holy Qur'an similarly prescribed a non-violent and patient response, as the early muslims were persecuted in Mecca for 13 years. Post-Medina they were allowed proportionate response, in defensive wars, as they transformed into a polity. >Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged (Qur'an 22:39)Which later doctrinal developments after the Prophet's death, by jurists of the ummayads and abbasids evolved into certain kinds of offensive wars declared under the jurisdiction of Caliphs, as they become an imperial empire.>Don't salute the flag or sing the anthem>Because they say it's idolatry Holy based
>>18488570>You are against blood transfusions?Yes. The Bible commands that we not ingest blood. So we should not accept whole blood or its primary components in any form, whether offered as food or as a transfusion. Note the following scriptures:Genesis 9:4.“Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”God allowed Noah and his family to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood but commanded them not to eat the blood. God told Noah. This command applies to all mankind from that time on because all are descendants of Noah.Leviticus 17:14.“You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”God viewed the soul, or life, as being in the blood and belonging to him. Although this law was given only to the nation of Israel, it shows how seriously God viewed the law against eating blood.Acts 15:20.“Abstain from blood.”God gave Christians the same command that he had given to Noah. History shows that early Christians refused to consume whole blood or even to use it for medical reasons.
>>18488581Eating involves ingesting into the stomach for food, through the mouth. Blood transfusions do not fit this definition. You are not being rational or unbiased. You are simply replacing the Church tradition with the Watchtower tradition. You must judge a text by its plain meaning as intended for its audience, not through anyone's dogmatic reading of the text.
>>18488588The basic reason why Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid blood transfusions is in the Bible, in Acts 15:28, 29:For the holy spirit+ and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols,+ from blood,+ from what is strangled,*+ and from sexual immorality.*+ If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”*Jehovah’s Witnesses understand that “to keep abastaining from blood” includes not only drinking blood, but transfunding blood. And that it is necessary. Necessary to what? The context of the chapter indicates that they are dealing with what is necessary to “be saved” (Acts 15:1).You seem to interpret that abstaininng from blood only means not to ingest blood, so you can transfund blood into your body and suppossedly you are still abstaining from blood. In our mind frame, this doesn’t make any sense.The underlying reason for this scriptural command is that God views blood as representing life. (Leviticus 17:14) So we avoid taking blood not only in obedience to God but also out of respect for him as the Giver of life.We understand that obeying God is more important than life itself, following Christ’s example. But that doesn’t mean that we want to die. We love life, and we resort to bloodless medicine. Fortunately, there are good professionals and researchers willing to help us and any other patients who opt for this alternative:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodless_surgery
>>18488599>Did the Jewish tradition interpret the verses of the OT as anything except ingesting blood?No>Did Jesus or the Apostles understand it as anything other than eating blood?No>Did the Christian tradition understand the OT or NT as prohibiting anything other than the ingesting of blood?No>So the first people to figure it out are the Witnesses in the 20th century?YesOkay I guess no one knew what Hebrew or Greek meant until then
>>18488581Tbh i can't make the interpretative leap that the verses you quoted forbid blood transfusion. The intent seems to be about consuming blood, through your mouth, as a dietary restriction. Isn't transfusion life saving?>JWs see themselves as a restoration of 1st-century Christianity, completely bypassing 1,900 years of church tradition and development.Holy based, you bypass Greco-Roman constructs completely, like the nicaean trinity and the chalcedonian creed. Because according to you, they are pagan ideas projected onto biblical text?Orthodox christians would argue they merely borrowed the language of the pagans, to explain what they were inferring from the bible.Says here, you partially reject the original sin. How does your denomination articulate the meaning of Jesus' ministery on earth? Particularly christology, crucifixion and ressurection?
HERETICS HOPPING FROM ONE SECT INTO ANOTHER.
>>18488109Know a couple of pakis who converted to being Mormons
>>18488605>>18488609Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins ? Of course not ! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.>Says here, you partially reject the original sin?We don't reject the original sinSee: https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODMinistryTeachings/docid-502016853_1_VIDEO
>>18488609>Because according to you, they are pagan ideas projected onto biblical text?Correct. The Bible identifies Jehovah as the only true God. (Psalm 83:18; John 17:3) The prophet Isaiah recorded God’s own words when he said: “Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”—Isaiah 43:10, 11.All the other gods are not merely inferior to Jehovah. In most cases they are nonexistent, strictly figments of human imagination. The Bible refers to these gods as “the product of the hands of man, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell.” (Deuteronomy 4:28) The Bible plainly teaches that Jehovah is the only true God.
>>18488615If I use your interpretation, I couldn't use alcohol to clean wounds either. Obviously an absurd interpretation. Also there's no benefit to injecting alcohol so that's a bad analogy
>>18488618Except you still believe that God didn't personally create anything except for Jesus, who himself created the rest of the universe.And also Jesus will judge you on the Day of Judgement, not God.And also Jesus can forgive sins.Jesus appears to be God-adjacent at least according to the plain reading of the NT
>>18488615>We don't reject the original sinI said partially,>JWs do not believe that newborn babies inherit the moral guilt or personal condemnation of Adam's sin. Instead, they believe humans inherit the physical and spiritual consequences of that sin—namely, imperfection, sickness, and mortality.>view actually aligns closely with the Eastern Orthodox Church>JWs completely reject infant baptism devised by the church specifically to wash away the stain of the original sin. Instead, teaching that baptism is only for mature adults who can make a conscious, dedicated choice to serve God.>Catholics and Protestants believe original sin fractures or separates an immortal soul from God. JWs believe that humans ARE the souls- they do not have an independent soul. Therefore, they believe death is simply a state of absolute non-existence, rather than eternal spiritual torment>See:https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODMinistryTeachings/docid-502016853_1_VIDEOYour organization should upgrade their video presentation skills. Very outdated. Won't be popular with zoomers and gen alpha.>The Bible plainly teaches that Jehovah is the only true GodInteresting.
>>18488704Jehovah's Witnesses stand by the standard set by the first century Christians. This was the result of a decision based upon whether non-Jewish Christians from among the nations were under obligation to observe the law.The first century centralized body of apostles and elders in Jerusalem, (Acts 15:2) by the influence of the holy spirit, (Acts 15:28) concluded that there were three things in the law that were still binding upon all Christians because they precede the Law of Moses. (Acts 15:29)This was no doubt because they were restrictions on all of mankind that existed before the law and were informed by the law. These are listed below. As you read them, look up the Scriptures. Each one has 3 sets of scripture citations. The first scripture demonstrates that the listed restriction existed upon all mankind before the law, the second set shows an example in the law, and the third set shows that the apostles held all Christians to those standards throughout the first century.“Abstain from things sacrificed to an idol.” (Genesis 4:3, 4; Exodus 20:4, 5; 1 John 5:21)“Abstain … from blood,” (Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:16; Acts 21:25) and “from what is strangled.” (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:13; Acts 21:25)“Abstain … from sexual immorality.” (Genesis 2:22-25; Deuteronomy 22:28-29; 1 Corinthians 6:18)Back then, there were no blood transfusions, so a command to not put blood in one's veins would not have made any sense and might have given them ideas.The Jews considered the Law on blood binding, as they did not even include it in poultices, as the Egyptians did, or as any other ingredient.>>18488708Jesus is not God, but has a divine origin in heaven, a created being, having been known as "the power of God and the wisdom of God", (Pr 8:12; 22-31; 1Co 1:24) through whom God made all things (Joh 1:3; Col 1:15, 16).
>>18488734By any chance are you JWanon from pol? You type similarly.Anyway, the point was that many jobs that are best done by God Himself, creating the Universe, forgiving sins, and Judging on the Day of Judgement are delegated to Jesus, and while that may not strictly violate monotheism strictly, it gets close to it and does so in spirit.Anyway, we can agree to disagree on that for now, but I appreciate that you're attempting to honestly engage with criticism. Would you mind taking a look at my previous reply >>18488366and telling me how you'd respond? Especially since you don't accept the Church Fathers as an authority as a JW
>>18488805I very rarely post on /pol/. The perfect man, Jesus, gave his life as a ransom for imperfect humanity who could do nothing to buy back perfection. (1Pe 2:24) After his death, God resurrected Jesus, conquering death for all who put faith in him, (Joh 11:25) and he was once again made into a heavenly spirit being. At that time he was granted all authority over heaven where he was installed as king. (Mt 27:45-50; 28:17, 18) And when he has accomplished the entire plan laid out in the Scriptures, he will hand the kingship back to Jehovah, once again making Jehovah, alone, ruler of all things. (1 Co 15:28)Jesus is God’s appointed judge and representative just as Moses was, (Ex 4:15, 16; Ps 82:1-8) but in a greater sense, having become heir to the kingdom of God in order that he might subject all things to the only true God, his Father and the Father of the heavenly adopted holy ones, Jehovah. (Joh 20:17; Heb 1:2)
>>18488805>how you'd respond? Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. There was universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was established by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. The skilled scribe and inspired Bible writer Ezra began the work, and it was completed by Nehemiah. (Ezr 7:6) For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. The writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed during the time that the gifts of the spirit were operative on Christ’s followers. (Joh 14:26; Re 1:1) Some Christians had the gift of “discernment of inspired expressions.” (1Co 12:10) Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Thus, they could, without referring the matter to a supposed church council, determine which of the letters the congregation received were inspired of God. With the death of John, the last apostle, this reliable chain of divinely inspired men came to an end. Therefore, with the book of Revelation, John’s Gospel, and his three letters, the Bible canon was closed.
>>18488540Am I supposed to take it at face value?Your assertion is first stupid because arithmetic is incomplete and you certainly can't prove things like goodness with it... The closest thing that comes to a logical argument for god is gödel's modal "proof" and it's quite underwhelming, considering the axioms...Assuming goodness is some kind of fundamental thing is the most retarded thing out there.Actually I can also derive my god from fartedness and I proved him necessary IN ALL POSSIBLE WORDS
>>18488856I can demonstrate it for you if you promise to be sincere, but I don't want to waste my time with a shitposter
>>18488826The Bible you have today was canonized by the Church centuries later, not by the first century Christians and certainly not by the Apostles. You think Paul knew he was writing divine revelation with his own hands? And also knew when he wasn't with his other letters that didn't make the cut into the Bible?
>>18489079>The Bible you have today was canonized by the Church centuries laterThis has been debunked by brother David Splane of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses:https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/pub-jwb-096_13_VIDEO
>>18489095Excuse me if this is not the topic of the video, because I just saw the title and assumed what the argument was. But is the argument that the verse in Timothy is a confirmation of the New Testament as it is in the Bible we have today?Again, does this mean that Paul was aware which letters he wrote were and were not divine revelation? Does this mean he knew the Book of Revelation and all four gospels? The much more plain reading of that verse is that Paul was talking about the Jewish scriptures which everyone already had at that time and agreed on, not the NT books and Epistles.If this is not the argument, I apologize and I'll watch the video, but otherwise I don't want to waste my time
What are Jehova's Witnesses?The movement began as a small group of people who read the Bible together to interpret its meaning, but they interpreted it much differently than the rest of the world. They refer to YHWH as Yehowah (Jehovah) instead of Yahweh like most people do. Both names have been in use historically, since the name YHWH from the Bible is an incomplete name. JWs made their own Bible translation that replaces every occurrence of YHWH with Jehovah.Their religion is strictly based on the Bible, they make all their decisions based on Bible verses and how they interpret them. Since nobody celebrated a birthday in the Bible except for Pharaoh and some other non-Jew, they view birthdays as evil pagan holidays and they are forbidden from attending birthday parties.They are mostly forbidden from talking to non-JWs except with the intent to convert them. These are the people who walk up to strangers and say, "Do you have a moment of your time to talk about our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ?"Their churches are called Kingdom Halls and ban all idols or depictions of prophets and God. They do not wear crosses either and consider that a false Christian symbol for the false Christians.Their Kingdom Halls are built for free by volunteer JWs and they do not often hire contractors since they are not supposed to associate with non-JWs except when converting them. After they build a King's Hall for free via volunteer work, they operate in it for a few years and then sell it for a profit to other religions to use for their holy buildings.They are more strict against homosexuality than mainstream Christians are. They do not celebrate Christmas or most holidays as they view it as a pagan tradition.They ban toys that are themed on magic like the wizard in this cartoon... for example.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPcT-Vbj0rAMuch of the community is BLACK. And they can be confused with Mormons since they both dress similar and try to convert strangers. Lol.
>>18489071I will read it and criticize it because I am biased against it so you have to expect that.
>>18488109NGL Safira sounds more fun.
>>18489349Well I appreciate your admission of bias but at least commit to attempting to stay rational. Once I formulate the argument in a sufficient way I will post it here. Check back later if the thread is still up
>>18488109>chan saved filenameYWNBL
>>18489452Sure.
>>18488109"More and more" = "Here's a negligible thing I want to pretend is notable."
>>18489774>1=1, undeniable>PSR: every contingent thing needs an explanation, brute facts are cope>infinite regress of simultaneous causes impossible>so there's an uncaused, simple, necessary Being — the Absolute>pure Being has no privation, so it's identical with perfect Goodness and Justice (privation theory)>cosmos is contingent, so the Absolute created it freely>that takes intellect and will>a perfectly Good and Just Creator would only make the optimal plan>optimal plan = bounded test (First Life) + terminal rectification (Second Life)>test requires genuine free choice, so suffering is permitted but bounded and compensable>available truth is sufficient to pass, but never forced>no randomness, all causal chains trace back to the Absolute>cosmos is logically consistent and intelligible>evil has no substance; it's a privation, a lack of being>asserting falsehood generates cognitive friction (try believing 1=0 and see what happens)>now the posture: every good you have is an unearned gift from the Absolute, which makes obligatory gratitude (will's alignment, not emotion)>every permitted evil is a bounded privation within a just framework, which makes obligatory patience (refusal to despair or accuse the Absolute)>together they form a single unified posture toward the whole test>refusal of either is a privation of the will, structural insincerity, and it slowly blinds you to further truth>that's the logical skeleton from 1=1 to the rational posture you owe the AbsoluteThis is condensed into a bare-bones form, so if you have any questions about any steps that appear to be leaps of logic, feel free to ask.
>>18490520>PSR: every contingent thing needs an explanation, brute facts are copeI reject it>infinite regress of simultaneous causes impossible This might be cope and unrelated but my belief is that the present teleogically causes the past and fixes uncertainty so no infinite regression in the past. So it's an infinite progression, and since you probably believe in eternal truth or something you can't reject an algorithm going for something like forever... In that sense I believe the present is the first cause. But that's an unproven belief so take it as is.>so there's an uncaused, simple, necessary Being — the Absolute Ok>pure Being has no privation, so it's identical with perfect Goodness and Justice Goodness and justice is undefined for that matter goodness might mean raping a child=good... Or to make thing consistent, goodness=anything that's possible, conceiveable, just like our everyday experience. You're using it as a macro>cosmos is contingentI don't know, I'm enclined to think it's not>a perfectly Good and Just Creator would only make the optimal plan Maybe, if you assume he has an agenda, which I don't>optimal plan = bounded test (First Life) + terminal rectification (Second Life)How do you know?>test requires genuine free choice, so suffering is permitted but bounded and compensable How do you know + how do you define free choice?>available truth is sufficient to pass, but never forced How do you know?>no randomness, all causal chains trace back to the Absolute Maybe but how do you explain things like quantum uncertainty? Not a s o y boy by the way>cosmos is logically consistent and intelligible How do you know? I also make this assumption but only for practical reasons.>evil has no substance; it's a privation, a lack of beingSure>asserting falsehood generates cognitive friction (try believing 1=0 and see what happens) I don't know what to make of that claim>now the posture etc...Follows from the premisces ok
>>18490566>I reject itOkay so you forfeit all ability to make any causal claim about anything ever. Nothing has a reason for it, it just is.You have abandoned rationality, contrary to your commitment.
>>18490566Btw how can you say the present causes the past when you reject PSR? Do you actually understand PSR? All PSR means is that something that didn't have to exist should have a reason for why it is the way it is. To reject it means nothing has a reason for why it is the way it is.
>>18490590I first observe something, then I make sure I can observe it in a replicable manner, then I try to model a mechanical reason for why that thing is, so I can predict what that thing will be or what it will do to its environment...To me that's optimal rationalityThe rest is guesswork for giggles
>>18490687The demand for a reason for why you observe something as the way it is, is itself assuming PSR. Look it up if you ever get the urge to understand my point
