Page 1 of 5 [ 73 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

mattc
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 59

22 Jan 2010, 4:19 pm

Why is it Jehovah's witnesses think that the bible can be used as evidence I recall a time I spent nearly an hour on my doorstep speaking to one that was intent on converting me. No matter what I said to her to try and explain that you can't use it as evidence to support the existence of a god she countered my argument with a passage from the one she was holding, eventually she gave up after quite some time and reverted to saying that she felt sorry for me.

The bible (new testament at least) was written in bits and pieces by different people at different times often a long time after the events took place, the fact that it mentions names like Alexander the great doesn't mean anything at all, all that proves is that he was a big name of his time. When I talk to a witness I try to draw them away from the bible and get down to the hard facts and principles that lye at the heart of the discussion and the usual reply is "well I don't know it could be anything" or they'll cut me off and read another passage.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Jan 2010, 12:25 am

mattc wrote:
Why is it Jehovah's witnesses think that the bible can be used as evidence I recall a time I spent nearly an hour on my doorstep speaking to one that was intent on converting me. No matter what I said to her to try and explain that you can't use it as evidence to support the existence of a god she countered my argument with a passage from the one she was holding, eventually she gave up after quite some time and reverted to saying that she felt sorry for me.

The bible (new testament at least) was written in bits and pieces by different people at different times often a long time after the events took place, the fact that it mentions names like Alexander the great doesn't mean anything at all, all that proves is that he was a big name of his time. When I talk to a witness I try to draw them away from the bible and get down to the hard facts and principles that lye at the heart of the discussion and the usual reply is "well I don't know it could be anything" or they'll cut me off and read another passage.


I have had the same experience. These people are generally good intentioned but they cannot think independently of their deep conditioning. It's impolite to be rude to them as they are taking time out of their lives to help others in the way they know how. Nevertheless, one might as well listen to birds chirping to discover good sense.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Jan 2010, 8:53 am

mattc wrote:
No matter what I said to her to try and explain that you can't use it as evidence to support the existence of a god she countered my argument with a passage from the one she was holding ...


However flawed, the logic there is simple: If even some of what you can read there is true, then why not just believe the things you are being told?

I have spent a lot of time talking with many JWs and Mormons, and I have yet to meet even one of them who can have an actual discussion about anything without centering all of it around the particular pitch they have been trained to present.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

23 Jan 2010, 4:55 pm

the most important thing to remember here is, is that the first four books of the new testement cant even backed up by any supporting document that actually exists. "hypothetically speaking" there is a document called the "Q" document wich is where these books suposidly are dirived from but has never been found

it gets pretty dangerous when people talk about absolutes, so pass them off and go your own way


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Jan 2010, 7:59 pm

richardbenson wrote:
the most important thing to remember here is, is that the first four books of the new testement cant even backed up by any supporting document that actually exists. "hypothetically speaking" there is a document called the "Q" document wich is where these books suposidly are dirived from but has never been found

it gets pretty dangerous when people talk about absolutes, so pass them off and go your own way


Then. of course, there are the R, S, and T documents that were written after the Q document and also have never been found. They are said to be buried seventeen miles under Mt. Everest and nobody has bothered to dig them up because that would make Mt. Everest shorter and spoil the tourist trade and screw up the plans for building an escalator to the top to provide easier access for amateur mountain climbers.



richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

23 Jan 2010, 8:11 pm

so i dont know if your being sarcastic, or if you are offended by me saying the q document doesnt exist but everyone thinks it does or maybe i wasnt specific enough in saying that one of the gospels was taken from it then the three others were taken from that one. oh oh wich is it? im sitting on the end of my chair in suspence! dont keep me waiting hunnybuns


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

23 Jan 2010, 8:19 pm

I know a Baptist who enjoys having the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons come and visit. She gives them a very good argument. Then, they never return.

If you've read the Bible, then you probably understand it better than these missionaries do. Sometimes, you can have some fun with them.



stev1parr
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 13

23 Jan 2010, 9:19 pm

Well, if the bible is not going to be the authority, what book, person, or wisdom do you suggest be consulted? Or should we just make it up as we go along? Do what ever we feel?

When Jehovah asks the Israelites for their exclusive devotion, they said yes. He provided them with laws and purpose that if followed, would mean peace and prosperity. Over time, they chose other gods and other ways of life that put them in direct opposition with their God Jehovah.

In other words, just like most of these comments, the Israelites, chose to ignore the law covenant (God’s word). It was too restrictive, to confining, and not in step with what was going on around them. They were so determine to live their own lives; they would put God’s prophets to death. The Law became foolish to them.

Toady, the Bible has become foolish to many people for a variety of reason, but mainly because people want to decide for themselves right and wrong. The bible is in more household worldwide than any other single piece of literature, and yet seldom read let alone studied.

None of us created ourselves. Therefore, while we have the free will to choose for ourselves, we do not have the right to operate outside the creator’s design.

The Bible is Jehovah’s primary tools used to help honest hearted people to have an accurate knowledge of who they are, why they are here, and what the future holds.

This is why the Witnesses rely on the Bible (God’s wisdom) and not their own wisdom.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

23 Jan 2010, 10:14 pm

stev1parr wrote:
Well, if the bible is not going to be the authority, what book, person, or wisdom do you suggest be consulted?


First, welcome to WP!

The question of this thread is about "the bible" being used as evidence to support the existence of a god.

No collection of books could ever do that as well as the evidence surrounding us.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Jan 2010, 10:15 pm

stev1parr wrote:
Well, if the bible is not going to be the authority, what book, person, or wisdom do you suggest be consulted? Or should we just make it up as we go along? Do what ever we feel?

When Jehovah asks the Israelites for their exclusive devotion, they said yes. He provided them with laws and purpose that if followed, would mean peace and prosperity. Over time, they chose other gods and other ways of life that put them in direct opposition with their God Jehovah.

In other words, just like most of these comments, the Israelites, chose to ignore the law covenant (God’s word). It was too restrictive, to confining, and not in step with what was going on around them. They were so determine to live their own lives; they would put God’s prophets to death. The Law became foolish to them.

Toady, the Bible has become foolish to many people for a variety of reason, but mainly because people want to decide for themselves right and wrong. The bible is in more household worldwide than any other single piece of literature, and yet seldom read let alone studied.

None of us created ourselves. Therefore, while we have the free will to choose for ourselves, we do not have the right to operate outside the creator’s design.

The Bible is Jehovah’s primary tools used to help honest hearted people to have an accurate knowledge of who they are, why they are here, and what the future holds.

This is why the Witnesses rely on the Bible (God’s wisdom) and not their own wisdom.


The alternative works very well. We make it up as we go along. That's called science.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jan 2010, 10:24 pm

pandabear wrote:
I know a Baptist who enjoys having the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons come and visit.


I do the same, I often invite them in and offer them a nice cuppa. Its a fun sport. :lol:


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jan 2010, 10:30 pm

stev1parr wrote:
Well, if the bible is not going to be the authority, what book, person, or wisdom do you suggest be consulted?


Are you for real, have you never heard the term 'scientific evidence'. Are you suggesting you would prefer to use superstitious ramblings from people ignorant of scientific understanding, rather than the vast amount of knowledge humanity has acquired since those times. 8O

Edit: Oppps sorry for my rudeness in not welcoming you to WP.

You are free to shout about your beliefs, by the same token please do not expect us to respect your beliefs :wink:


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Last edited by DentArthurDent on 23 Jan 2010, 11:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

23 Jan 2010, 10:41 pm

Welcome to WP.

You chose a doozy of a subforum to make your first post. It can get pretty rough in here.. but the rest of WP is much more gentle. So dont be chased off when you get argued hard against.

stev1parr wrote:
None of us created ourselves.


No we did not, but worshiping my parents would make them very uncomfortable.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Jan 2010, 10:50 pm

richardbenson wrote:
so i dont know if your being sarcastic, or if you are offended by me saying the q document doesnt exist but everyone thinks it does or maybe i wasnt specific enough in saying that one of the gospels was taken from it then the three others were taken from that one. oh oh wich is it? im sitting on the end of my chair in suspence! dont keep me waiting hunnybuns

I dunno what Sand was doing, however, despite Q being widely believed, there are some scholars who think that Q doesn't exist, and that Luke was just a later Gospel than Mark and Matthew and copied from those two documents, which explains the similarities that Q was invoked to explain.

http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2010/2010.1/new_testament/



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jan 2010, 11:04 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
richardbenson wrote:
so i dont know if your being sarcastic, or if you are offended by me saying the q document doesnt exist but everyone thinks it does or maybe i wasnt specific enough in saying that one of the gospels was taken from it then the three others were taken from that one. oh oh wich is it? im sitting on the end of my chair in suspence! dont keep me waiting hunnybuns

I dunno what Sand was doing, however, despite Q being widely believed, there are some scholars who think that Q doesn't exist, and that Luke was just a later Gospel than Mark and Matthew and copied from those two documents, which explains the similarities that Q was invoked to explain.

http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2010/2010.1/new_testament/


I just presumed he was being sarcastic towards the idea of Q, rather than taking a shot at RB


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

24 Jan 2010, 12:24 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
richardbenson wrote:
so i dont know if your being sarcastic, or if you are offended by me saying the q document doesnt exist but everyone thinks it does or maybe i wasnt specific enough in saying that one of the gospels was taken from it then the three others were taken from that one. oh oh wich is it? im sitting on the end of my chair in suspence! dont keep me waiting hunnybuns

I dunno what Sand was doing, however, despite Q being widely believed, there are some scholars who think that Q doesn't exist, and that Luke was just a later Gospel than Mark and Matthew and copied from those two documents, which explains the similarities that Q was invoked to explain.

http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2010/2010.1/new_testament/


I just presumed he was being sarcastic towards the idea of Q, rather than taking a shot at RB


I am not fond of shooting fish in a barrel.