Are Jehovah's Witnesses taught not to answer hypothetical questions?

[savagewind]

No - sorry - what was it again?

Are all riders of a white horse Jesus?

The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.

 

[savagewind]

You and they say the rider pictured at Revelation 6:2 has to be Jesus because he is riding a white horse.
Revelation 19:14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.

Is your reasoning more than a little screwed up?

Can you answer me this, truly, please. Were you an elder? @siti

I wonder if you are the monkey on Jehovah's Witness.net?

 

[savagewind]

IF a crown means authority, Jesus received HIS at his accession Matthew 28:18 WHY would he be pictured receiving another crown? WHY would he be pictured as a lamb in Heaven at the same time he is pictured riding with the very worst of the Human Race?

 

[siti]

Can you answer me this, truly, please. Were you an elder?

I fail to see the relevance but yes I was - but that was a long time ago - I have been "out of the truth" altogether for almost 17 years and I 'stepped down' as an elder 18 years ago. It sounds to me like you have had a very bad experience and re-reading your posts I sense a deep anger and resentment. I have no wish to upset you any further but the topic of the discussion was not about whether JWs are right or wrong, but about whether they are "taught to avoid hypothetical questions". Can you honestly remember being taught to do that? I don't.

And honestly again - no I don't believe in God and the Bible (certainly not in the way that they - or you as far as I can make out - do) - but again, that was not the topic of the discussion. I am not defending JW doctrines - I am simply demonstrating that it is entirely possible for them to handle hypothetical questions (if they want to - but I suspect most would just categorize them as 'foolish questionings' and move on to what they would regard to be more 'fertile' soil).

Like I said to @Deeje earlier, don't mistake convincing argument for 'truth' - or 'untruth'. There is no need for you to be angry with me - I know a lot about the JW organization and its doctrines which is neither appropriate nor relevant to the current discussion. But your approach is honestly not likely to convince anyone that JWs are especially irrational - which is what I suspect was the intent of the OP.

 

[siti]

IF a crown means authority, Jesus received HIS at his accession Matthew 28:18 WHY would he be pictured receiving another crown? WHY would he be pictured as a lamb in Heaven at the same time he is pictured riding with the very worst of the Human Race?

OK - let's carry on if you want to...why would the "Kings of the earth" fear the "wrath of the lamb"? (Revelation 6:16)

 

[savagewind]

The JWs are not explicitly to avoid hypothetical questions but they are taught to follow the way the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses teach the Bible.

They will avoid questions that seem to be for the purpose of leading them away from the one mind.

make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.
Philippians 2:2
all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.
1 Peter 3:8

Pair those with the other some strict teachings as these.

Bad associations spoil useful habits.
1 Corinthians 15:33

you used to walk when you conformed to the ways of this world and of the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience.
Ephesians 2:2

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.
Ephesians 5:6

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ.
Colossianss 2:8

Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness (the son of destruction) is revealed.
2 Thessalonians 2:3

Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace and not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those devoted to them.
Hebrews 13:9

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.
1 Corinthians 10:21

 

[savagewind]

OK - let's carry on if you want to...why would the "Kings of the earth" fear the "wrath of the lamb"? (Revelation 6:16)

I don't understand the question. Are you saying that Revelation 6:2 shows a wrathful person? I don't see it.

 

[Deeje]

That would be weird. The creator the world, almighty, and all of that limits himself?

He does not limit himself...he defines himself.....can you not see the difference? We cannot give him our own definition as if we know this God better than the way he reveals himself to us. Jesus represented his Father's personality perfectly. As a human he had limitations until God anointed him with holy spirit and then he was able to stretch them to miraculous limits.....yet he was still human. He then passed on those miraculous gifts to his apostles, who in turn passed them on to others for a time. Once the Christian congregations became firmly established, the need for miracles (which were only demonstrations of what will be experienced on a grand scale during the rulership of God's kingdom in the hands of his Christ) became unnecessary and ceased, but we had all of Christ's teachings down in writing to keep our faith on track. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13)

To me, it sounds like people in the bible as well as people today-since they didn't all of the sudden turn undivine after a little after 2,000 years. Weird switch-limit god to the bible. That's the only way christians want to understand god is through physical text.

God has always communicated to his people through human representatives. From the formation of the nation of Israel up until the present, God has had his dedicated servants dispensing his truth and revealing his will. Apostasy was foretold however and for an extended period Christianity lost its way (just as Judaism had lost its way before.)......up until "the time of the end", which is when God was to separate his true worshippers from the forest of 'weed-like' imitations planted by the devil by the granting of knowledge and understanding not available to anyone until this time. (Daniel 12:9-10)

To many other god-believers and even myself that is very weird to depend on a book to speak for god. God should speak for himself without the prophets and disciples as well speaking for him when he should be able to speak for himself. If christians really believe in god, who is this god a part from the bible?

God-believers are a dime a dozen. Most have created their own gods in their own image, rather than the other way around.

If the Bible is the Creator's communication to mankind and a history lesson to the world, then why does he need to communicate directly with anyone? He wants us to have faith.....if he communicated in a booming voice and forced people to do his will, then how is that consistent with giving humans free will and self determination? It isn't God who judges us as unworthy of everlasting life in his "new earth"....it is we who disqualify ourselves by our choices and conduct. He is allowing all of us to choose our own destiny.

God's written word has survived through thousands of years of attempts to destroy or discredit it, yet it remains one of the most widely read and translated books in existence. If the Creator has the ability to produce a book and to communicate his will to men who were commanded to record them for future generations, then he has the power to preserve it despite all those attempts, even by the church itself, to keep it out of human hands. There are more translations of the Bible today than at any other time in history.
People don't even need a hard copy anymore...they are all available online in every language. There is now no excuse.

 

[savagewind]

If the rider of Revelation 6:2 shows Jesus Christ then the rider's going forth to conquer and to complete his conquest would be this: 1 Timothy 2:4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth That is called love, not wrath.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

He does not limit himself...he defines himself.....can you not see the difference?

Actually, I can't tell the difference. God is defined by culture, traditions, and some people's need to find another-a guidance of some sort for their everyday lives and morals. It is healthy and human nature as man develops through time that we build traditions to confirm the once gods who we used to take care of us and interpret life. When you make it one god, though, it gets more political. Then people have a struggle back and forth whether they want to worship the god that "got ahead of them" or be that god's friend and live in peace rather than debate. Bu it depends on the person.

I can't see how god can limit himself, really. If he is actually god, doing so is against his nature. Either he can do everything or he can't.

We cannot give him our own definition as if we know this God better than the way he reveals himself to us.

Jesus represented his Father's personality perfectly. As a human he had limitations until God anointed him with holy spirit and then he was able to stretch them to miraculous limits.....yet he was still human. He then passed on those miraculous gifts to his apostles, who in turn passed them on to others for a time. Once the Christian congregations became firmly established, the need for miracles (which were only demonstrations of what will be experienced on a grand scale during the rulership of God's kingdom in the hands of his Christ) became unnecessary and ceased, but we had all of Christ's teachings down in writing to keep our faith on track. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13)

The bible is a perfect example of our definition of god. Remember, god is a spirit. If he exists, he should exist through you and expressed through you. If Moses, Abraham, and Jesus can speak as a messenger of god, why can't you? (Abraham didn't have scripture to fall back on) even further back, Adam didn't either.

We agree with jesus christ only in the fact he is not god. What we disagree with is that christ brings communion to brothers and sisters of christ. Without that communion in him physically, there is no body of christ. He is only limited when the people do not come in his name to make him present.

God has always communicated to his people through human representatives. From the formation of the nation of Israel up until the present, God has had his dedicated servants dispensing his truth and revealing his will. Apostasy was foretold however and for an extended period Christianity lost its way (just as Judaism had lost its way before.)......up until "the time of the end", which is when God was to separate his true worshippers from the forest of 'weed-like' imitations planted by the devil by the granting of knowledge and understanding not available to anyone until this time. (Daniel 12:9-10)

I'm outside of the abrahamic realm. If god speaks to people, it is directly. It isn't through a prophet, a manifestation, a sacred text, or anything like that. If we are just "limited beings" then it would not make sense for an abrahamic god to lower himself to communicate. That's like a parent telling their child they love them through their brothers and sisters when the parent is alive and able to tell the child directly.

God-believers are a dime a dozen. Most have created their own gods in their own image, rather than the other way around.

That's your belief. We all have beliefs. If they are facts, they should be demonstrated as such by more than one source that is not all religious in nature.

If the Bible is the Creator's communication to mankind and a history lesson to the world, then why does he need to communicate directly with anyone? He wants us to have faith.....if he communicated in a booming voice and forced people to do his will, then how is that consistent with giving humans free will and self determination? It isn't God who judges us as unworthy of everlasting life in his "new earth"....it is we who disqualify ourselves by our choices and conduct. He is allowing all of us to choose our own destiny.

Do you think that god would communicate in such a forceful manner if it wasn't by text? What is your image of god? Does a text-version of god soften your view of him if he is a strong being that can't communicate otherwise?

How do you define god outside the bible? (Abraham and Moses can do it; how about you?)

God's written word has survived through thousands of years of attempts to destroy or discredit it, yet it remains one of the most widely read and translated books in existence. If the Creator has the ability to produce a book and to communicate his will to men who were commanded to record them for future generations, then he has the power to preserve it despite all those attempts, even by the church itself, to keep it out of human hands. There are more translations of the Bible today than at any other time in history.
People don't even need a hard copy anymore...they are all available online in every language.

Let me ask. In the past 3,000 years (which is pretty recent) how did that time period be divine and ours all of the sudden become "not divine."? Who flip the switch and when?

I'm sure we would have felt the wave between when Christ was here, the apostles, and where we are today.

There is now no excuse.

There is an excuse. You're just not giving people credit for actually having the same thing you have with god but by another religion and practice.

No biggie. I have yet to meet an abrahamic that get's it.

 

[Deeje]

Seriously Deeje? You tried the "soft soap" approach and that didn't work so now you're going with the "hard talk" version? Been there, done that, rarely effective.

In any case, do I really strike you as disgruntled, bitter, miserable, vindictive or proud? Honestly? I am enjoying the thread and I sincerely dislike false accusations (against anyone) which is why I am batting for the JW side in this thread. But just because I can still interpret scripture sensibly to refute false arguments about what scripture says, doesn't mean I believe what it says, it just means I can read. Please don't pursue the rescuing a faltering brother from the fire angle any further - I'll just drop out of the thread if you do that. I appreciate your kind concern but this is not the place for that - and in any case, as I tried to suggest, it ain't gonna work.

Duly noted. The "disgruntled, bitter, miserable, vindictive or proud" comment was not meant to describe you....but you can clearly see it on the net from many others who have an axe to grind. Sorry if I offended you.

We had a study recently about the parable of the "dragnet"...it was very interesting and explained a lot about those who don't stay in the net. The 'unsuitable' fish don't jump out of the dragnet but are separated out by the fisherman and thrown away. (Matthew 13:47-50) What are the "containers" that the suitable fish are put into?

 

[siti]

I don't understand the question. Are you saying that Revelation 6:2 shows a wrathful person? I don't see it.

If the rider of Revelation 6:2 shows Jesus Christ then the rider's going forth to conquer and to complete his conquest would be this: 1 Timothy 2:4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth That is called love, not wrath.

I am saying that the image of the lamb and the image of the conquering King on a white horse are common to both Rev 6 (and 7) and Rev 19. Minus the symbolic imagery the sequence of events is generally consistent between Matt 24, Rev 6 and Rev 19. I am saying that is what it says. I am not saying I believe any particular interpretation, I am saying that the sequence of "prophetic" events are very similar across the three passages. I don't really know what difference it makes if the rider in Rev 6:2 is not Jesus. Not much as far as I can see, except to disturb the pattern of correspondence between the imagery in two parts of the same writer's prophecy. In the end - it seems to me - the point is that ultimately Jesus wrathfully bumps off everyone who is not obedient to his "message of love".

Do I still believe this? No I don't. But that is what it says.

 

[savagewind]

Jesus wrathfully bumps off everyone who is not obedient to his "message of love".

. But that is what it says.

The Bible does not say that. People assume it says that.
IF Jesus is for "bumping people off" then he is not for God's will that all men be saved and to knowledge come.

It is a dirty sin to say that it is Jesus Christ who causes the death of the people who die for
not knowing the life that is in Jesus. Their death is caused by sowing evil.
God is not one to be mocked (or accused). You shall reap what you sow. Galatians 6:7

 

[siti]

We had a study recently about the parable of the "dragnet"...it was very interesting and explained a lot about those who don't stay in the net. The 'unsuitable' fish don't jump out of the dragnet but are separated out by the fisherman and thrown away. (Matthew 13:47-50) What are the "containers" that the suitable fish are put into?

Smarty pants - you knew I wouldn't be able to resist looking it up didn't you? Well OK - if its up to the 'fishermen' and not me, lets see whether they bother to come and throw this jumping fish back into net at some point. But I doubt they'll be able to catch me - I'm a slippery little fish.

 

[siti]

The Bible does not say that. People assume it says that.
IF Jesus is for "bumping people off" then he is not for God's will that all men be saved and to knowledge come.

It is a dirty sin to say that it is Jesus Christ who causes the death of the people who die for
not knowing the life that is in Jesus. Their death is caused by sowing evil.
God is not one to be mocked (or accused). You shall reap what you sow. Galatians 6:7

I'm not accusing anyone - here's what God says about it - in his own words (if you please) "... and the rest were killed with the sword of him [Jesus] that sat upon the horse, [even the sword] which came forth out of his mouth: and all the birds were filled with their flesh." - Revelation 19:21

BTW - I love the irony of you writing a sentence that implies that God's justice includes executing people for the sin of ignorance - and then telling me I'll reap what I sow. That made me smile.

 

[savagewind]

"... and the rest were killed with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, [even the sword] which came forth out of his mouth: and all the birds were filled with their flesh." - Revelation 19:21

You were an elder? What about these?

Ephesians 2:1
you were dead in your transgressions and sins,
Ephesians 2:5
made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.

Colossians 2:13
When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses

John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

Ephesians 5:14
Wake up, O sleeper, rise up from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.

 

[savagewind]

Does anyone know that Revelation is a DREAM VISION!

 

[savagewind]

How does Jesus cause death? The same way Noah caused it.

 

[savagewind]

Where are the missing arrows of the rider of Revelation 6:2?
And if he actually had arrows, what would they signify?

 

[savagewind]

I'm not accusing anyone - here's what God says about it - in his own words (if you please) "... and the rest were killed with the sword of him [Jesus] that sat upon the horse, [even the sword] which came forth out of his mouth: and all the birds were filled with their flesh." - Revelation 19:21

BTW - I love the irony of you writing a sentence that implies that God's justice includes executing people for the sin of ignorance - and then telling me I'll reap what I sow. That made me smile.

Oh brother!!!!!!!!!! How is dying like an execution, in your opinion?