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

[Hockeycowboy]

So what makes one person think their particular interpretation is better than another person's?

Revelation of the truth comes from the Father, i.e., Jehovah. (Luke 10:21; please read John 20:17, then Psalms 83:18 ) According to Exodus 20:1-6, He is 'jealous': a person cannot gain His approval, if they're worshipping other gods. And that's exactly what the trinity does. It's not giving Jehovah sole worship, that He deserves. So, why would He grant understanding of His Word to ones who don't render devotion only to Him?

Let me ask you this: are you a father? How would you like it if your kids starting calling someone else, "Daddy"? You wouldn't. Neither does Jehovah.

 

[savagewind]

Let me guess. Is it because some people who think they know what Jesus meant don't agree with some other people who think they know what Jesus meant about their respective interpretations of what Jesus was supposed to have said?

Of course. IF Jesus is really the fine shepherd for people getting along with him and people are going helter-skelter all about him, then it is they who prevent God's will be done that all people be saved and to knowledge come. Any knowledge, in your opinion?

 

[savagewind]

Well no actually - he was called the λόγος (transliterated logos).

Correct and does λόγος have meaning? What is its meaning?

 

[savagewind]

Was he? Then why did he say: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."? (Matthew 10:34-35)

What YOU have might be total and absolute bull****.

It might say that the reason he comes IS BECAUSE 'a man IS against his father, a daughter IS against her mother, a daughter-in-law IS against her mother-in-law

Also, it seems to say "throw", not to send or to bring peace.

Throw means to scatter. Peace isn't for anyone who may pick it up. Peace is for learning.

Matthew 10:35 might be similar to what Jehovah heard about Sodom. Genesis 18:20-21

Jesus did not come so that the Earth will have any kind of peace that seems right, but Jesus is for the peace of God. Matthew 10:34

He did not come to add contention. He came because of it. Matthew 10:35.

 

[savagewind]

Or....would God not let the logos be manipulated like God let Adam be manipulated......and why not?

We know of people with no respect for life. More and more people are behaving as though they have no respect for the Earth.
Why is it not possible according to YOU that someone who handled what became the Bible had no respect for it?

 

[savagewind]

So, you believe in a god who won't leave you without righteousness. Why you and not me?

 

[savagewind]

So, then, you can not believe that what you trust are God's words aren't God's words because if you find yourself believing in false words you would find YOURSELF wrong.
Then, who are you obeying?
YOU want YOU to be right. I want God to be right. What's wrong with that?

 

[savagewind]

So, you believe in a god who won't leave you without righteousness. Why you and not me?

Actually, what I first meant to write was, why you and not Adam?
I know why you think not me.

 

[savagewind]

YOU want to be right, but what if God wants you to be wrong?

Romans 3:5

But let God be found true,+ even if every man be found a liar,+ just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”+ 5 However, if our unrighteousness highlights God’s righteousness, what are we to say? God is not unjust when he expresses his wrath, is he? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 By no means! How, otherwise, will God judge the world?+

Perhaps it means that if unrighteousness did not rise, then we would not seek God's righteousness,
but we would grow to take it for granted. We would learn never to think of it.

 

[siti]

You didn't give talks, at least not outlined talks!

I didn't? My goodness! I must have imagined that then.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I didn't? My goodness! I must have imagined that then.

Yep.

 

[savagewind]

I have a hypothetical question. One for which I have wished the resurrection of the writer of it so that I may ask him.

It is written that "love is not provoked", but honest to God, It may make more sense if it really and truly
says, "love does not provoke".

 

[savagewind]

I personally know for certain that love DOES get provoked. And I also know that love does not cause
contention on purpose. Contention is what causes provocation. Right?

 

[siti]

Why is it not possible according to YOU that someone who handled what became the Bible had no respect for it?

Indeed - so what we "know" about the supposed sayings of Jesus now is whatever the Bible we have now says. We have no idea even whether the originals in the original ancient languages either bear any resemblance to what Jesus really said or whether they bear any resemblance to the Bible we have now. So the "truth" is we only know what it says - which is what I said, if you can understand what I am saying. What Jesus may or may not have meant is entirely beyond us. So as you say:

What YOU have might be total and absolute bull****.

...which, again, was my point.

 

[savagewind]

Indeed - so what we "know" about the supposed sayings of Jesus now is whatever the Bible we have now says. We have no idea even whether the originals in the original ancient languages either bear any resemblance to what Jesus really said or whether they bear any resemblance to the Bible we have now. So the "truth" is we only know what it says - which is what I said, if you can understand what I am saying. What Jesus may or may not have meant is entirely beyond us. So as you say:
...which, again, was my point.

Yes, you are right, but I believe God is living and NOT dead. God is able to tell me differently.
God is not able to tell you differently because you are not in harmony with the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[siti]

Yes, you are right, but I believe God is living and NOT dead. God is able to tell me differently.
God is not able to tell you differently because you are not in harmony with the way, the truth, and the life.

Well OK - that's what I said - if someone has a direct divine revelation, that's fine for them. But then again, how do you know that I am not in harmony with God - just in a different way? If God can tell you differently, why can't he tell me differently from you as well?

 

[savagewind]

Well OK - that's what I said - if someone has a direct divine revelation, that's fine for them. But then again, how do you know that I am not in harmony with God - just in a different way? If God can tell you differently, why can't he tell me differently from you as well?

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace--as in all the congregations of the Lord's people.
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called one Lord, one faith, one baptism
Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf.
reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.
For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

I don't know, but I think your contention gives you away as NOT being a part of the body.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are right about one thing. We must speak in agreement. YOU seem to me to be speaking in agreement with what is the tradition of the Bible.

 

[siti]

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace--as in all the congregations of the Lord's people.
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called one Lord, one faith, one baptism
Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf.
reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.
For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

I don't know, but I think your contention gives you away as NOT being a part of the body.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are right about one thing. We must speak in agreement. YOU seem to me to be speaking in agreement with what is the tradition of the Bible.

But all that (your first few lines) IS the tradition of the Bible - isn't it? And isn't the disagreement and disharmony among Christians precisely because they all interpret the Bible differently and fail to speak in agreement about it? And aren't you just making up another version by declaring your understanding of it to be "in harmony with God" and everyone else's not? And might not this kind of reasoning itself be the problem not the answer? (Hypothetically speaking of course!)

 

[savagewind]

But all that (your first few lines) IS the tradition of the Bible - isn't it? And isn't the disagreement and disharmony among Christians precisely because they all interpret the Bible differently and fail to speak in agreement about it? And aren't you just making up another version by declaring your understanding of it to be "in harmony with God" and everyone else's not? And might not this kind of reasoning itself be the problem not the answer? (Hypothetically speaking of course!)

Words and interpretation are not the same. YOU know that! Interpretation is the tradition.
The words are clues.

 

[savagewind]

But all that (your first few lines) IS the tradition of the Bible - isn't it? And isn't the disagreement and disharmony among Christians precisely because they all interpret the Bible differently and fail to speak in agreement about it? And aren't you just making up another version by declaring your understanding of it to be "in harmony with God" and everyone else's not? And might not this kind of reasoning itself be the problem not the answer? (Hypothetically speaking of course!)

When did you see me declare my understanding is in harmony with God?

I believe that I am in harmony with reason. I think I have never said that I am with God.