the right religion

[waitasec]

I think it's more in the vein of "if you insist on harming those around you, you will be separated from those around you so you can do no more harm" kind of a thing. Is there something wrong with that?

no there isn't.


but that isn't what muff was insinuating now was it.


muff said"

but a person who does not accept the right religion proffered will be tossed out into outer space

remember context is key...but i don't expect you to understand that concept

 

[kylixguru]

remember context is key...but i don't expect you to understand that concept

Muff's understanding isn't consistent with what Jehovah's program actually is.

The only ones at risk to be "cast into outer darkness" are those who have persisted inside the faith and attained to power and authority within it and then for whatever reason they decide to fully turn against and deny their knowledge of it and to fight against Jehovah. The fallen Watchers in the Book of Enoch are one example.

Somebody who remains in relative ignorance and who never reaches the point to accept and be a part of a covenant with Jehovah are simply living their life subject to the elements as they may be without the protections and benefits that being a part of Jehovah's plan qualifies you for.

 

[idea]

...
remember context is key...

semantics are key... define what "the right religion" is, and I think you'll agree that those who don't subscribe to it embrace a harmful philosophy.

 

[waitasec]

semantics are key... define what "the right religion" is, and I think you'll agree that those who don't subscribe to it embrace a harmful philosophy.

thats not true at all.


the idea of a right religion is what causes one to murder their child in the name of faith healings or fly into buildings...

 

[waitasec]

Muff's understanding isn't consistent with what Jehovah's program actually is.

so what makes him wrong and you right?

unsupported or personal opinion?


:areyoucra

 

[kylixguru]

so what makes him wrong and you right?

unsupported or personal opinion?


:areyoucra

I included justifying remarks to my personal opinion.
How about you address those?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I think it's more in the vein of "if you insist on harming those around you, you will be separated from those around you so you can do no more harm" kind of a thing. Is there something wrong with that?

Not comparable to accepting 'the right religion'. Which is what the real event appears to be carrying the threat of expulsion, is.

Still an immoral stance, but...

 

[waitasec]

I included justifying remarks to my personal opinion.
How about you address those?

those who have persisted inside the faith and attained to power and authority within it

are determined by god or by the status quo?

deny their knowledge of it and to fight against Jehovah

who determines this denial, the individual or the status quo?

Somebody who remains in relative ignorance and who never reaches the point to accept and be a part of a covenant with Jehovah are simply living their life subject to the elements as they may be without the protections and benefits that being a part of Jehovah's plan qualifies you for.

i don't see the difference between this person and

those who have persisted inside the faith and attained to power and authority within it and then for whatever reason they decide to fully turn against and deny their knowledge of it and to fight against Jehovah.

why not trust the persons criteria for what determines what truth is for themselves?


so again what makes you right and him wrong?

 

[kylixguru]

are determined by god or by the status quo?

I'll keep the terms general since this is more or less a generic process. This is determined by the spiritual entity calling for the organization of the body thus betrayed. Thus, whether you call it God or the status quo can become a bit of a blurry distinction.

For example, we have elected officials who swear an oath or affirm that they will uphold the Constitution, which document was sourced by the entity stated in it to be "Nature's God" or "our Creator". So, if the person on trial for having betrayed their oath/affirmation is called to task for subtly undermining the Constitution and they are challenged by their constituents and refuse to remedy their breaches of it then they can be impeached. This motion is empowered to the degree the status quo backs it.

To the degree that the collective constituents governed by the betrayer are in harmony with the original intent of the spiritual body, it stands to reason that their collective will is what enforces the banishment of the betrayer from authority. Therefore, the originating spiritual entity is empowered and energized to deal with it.

So, there is a flip-side to this. If the collective people themselves subtly become undermined in their understanding of the original intent of the Constitution then the originating spiritual entity that gave birth to the society's body is who is banished. Then, what happens thereafter is there is no longer any integrity to the entire body and it loses its soul and begins to decay and to die.

Perhaps you realize at this point that there is a definite relationship between "god" and "the collective". So, the actual fact of the matter is, the only answer I can give you is that it isn't an "either"/"or" thing. It is both.

who determines this denial, the individual or the status quo?

Again, it depends upon the circumstances.

i don't see the difference ...

why not trust the persons criteria for what determines what truth is for themselves?

If a president of the United States blatantly violates their oath of office and undermines the Constitution they have sworn an oath to uphold and defend, wouldn't it stand to reason that nobody would want that person to have that opportunity to govern over them again and that they would collectively refuse to allow him to?

Then, compare this person to a peasant man in Cuba who doesn't know much about America, freedom and the Constitution. He's just a humble man doing his best to make ends meet for his family as best he can. Should he bear the same level of scorn and banishment as the President who betrays his oath of office?

so again what makes you right and him wrong?

Actually, I'm not really attached to being perceived as right and I'm not attached to making him appear wrong. I'll leave that for you to decide for yourself.

I simply stated my personal point of view you are free to reject if you please.

 

[waitasec]

I'll keep the terms general since this is more or less a generic process. This is determined by the spiritual entity calling for the organization of the body thus betrayed. Thus, whether you call it God or the status quo can become a bit of a blurry distinction.

For example, we have elected officials who swear an oath or affirm that they will uphold the Constitution, which document was sourced by the entity stated in it to be "Nature's God" or "our Creator". So, if the person on trial for having betrayed their oath/affirmation is called to task for subtly undermining the Constitution and they are challenged by their constituents and refuse to remedy their breaches of it then they can be impeached. This motion is empowered to the degree the status quo backs it.

To the degree that the collective constituents governed by the betrayer are in harmony with the original intent of the spiritual body, it stands to reason that their collective will is what enforces the banishment of the betrayer from authority. Therefore, the originating spiritual entity is empowered and energized to deal with it.

So, there is a flip-side to this. If the collective people themselves subtly become undermined in their understanding of the original intent of the Constitution then the originating spiritual entity that gave birth to the society's body is who is banished. Then, what happens thereafter is there is no longer any integrity to the entire body and it loses its soul and begins to decay and to die.

Perhaps you realize at this point that there is a definite relationship between "god" and "the collective". So, the actual fact of the matter is, the only answer I can give you is that it isn't an "either"/"or" thing. It is both.

ok the status quo...that is what i thought

Again, it depends upon the circumstances.

of course.

If a president of the United States blatantly violates their oath of office and undermines the Constitution they have sworn an oath to uphold and defend, wouldn't it stand to reason that nobody would want that person to have that opportunity to govern over them again and that they would collectively refuse to allow him to?

Then, compare this person to a peasant man in Cuba who doesn't know much about America, freedom and the Constitution. He's just a humble man doing his best to make ends meet for his family as best he can. Should he bear the same level of scorn and banishment as the President who betrays his oath of office?

you are moving goal posts.
why not just trust a persons POV for themselves especially when it comes to making choices that others, like you, have nothing to do with?

Actually, I'm not really attached to being perceived as right and I'm not attached to making him appear wrong. I'll leave that for you to decide for yourself.

I simply stated my personal point of view you are free to reject if you please.

i accept that for you...but reject it for me.

 

[camanintx]

For example, we have elected officials who swear an oath or affirm that they will uphold the Constitution, which document was sourced by the entity stated in it to be "Nature's God" or "our Creator".

The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people". It doesn't say anything about a "creator". That's the Declaration of Independence you're thinking of.

 

[kylixguru]

The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people". It doesn't say anything about a "creator". That's the Declaration of Independence you're thinking of.

Point granted! Thank you.

And, the Creator as I have come to see, is that spiritual entity that gives to everyone their free will so that "We the people" are the ones in authority to say how we want things to be, provided we do not infringe upon one another's free will.

And, that is the whole thrust of the Constitution, to gather together as "we the people" to secure to ourselves our unalienable rights, which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In that order. Your "happiness" cannot trump my liberty and your liberty cannot trump my life (or property).

However, we now have a government that is putting this impossible goal of everyone's happiness above everyone's liberty. It won't be long and we will start to see it moving into the taking of dissident's lives, instead of just their liberty.

 

[InfidelRiot]

America is the last first world country to be socially advancing. It is truly sad.

 

[9Westy9]

America is the last first world country to be socially advancing. It is truly sad.

the UK is still advancing

 

[kylixguru]

America is the last first world country to be socially advancing. It is truly sad.

It is!

We won't be first world any longer once we do.

Isn't 16 trillion dollars of debt enough to garner some sobriety when you consider there is only about 340 million of us?
That's almost $50,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in this nation.
And, if you look at the entitlements, our projected outlay goes off the charts.

I have already purchased land in a foreign country where there are no property taxes and I am beginning to make plans to extricate myself from this nightmare. I was not born to be a slave and I utterly refuse to be such.

 

[1robin]

America is the last first world country to be socially advancing. It is truly sad.

I would not call most of what we have been doing since the 50s advancing. In fact regressing is far more accurate. We have systematically removed God from schools and he was replaced by a dramatic rise in teen age pregnancy, school shootings, teen suicide, and falling standards. We have ripped God out of or in effect out of our government and well our current administration is spending our grand children into poverty before they are even born, making the killing of unborn children a form of birth control, and pandering to corrupt Muslim leaders who want to kill us. In fact I don't see much progress at all. This post is too depressing to even finish.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

God doesn't belong in our government. At all.

 

[Astravalon]

I would not call most of what we have been doing since the 50s advancing. In fact regressing is far more accurate. We have systematically removed God from schools and he was replaced by a dramatic rise in teen age pregnancy, school shootings, teen suicide, and falling standards. We have ripped God out of or in effect out of our government and well our current administration is spending our grand children into poverty before they are even born, making the killing of unborn children a form of birth control, and pandering to corrupt Muslim leaders who want to kill us. In fact I don't see much progress at all. This post is too depressing to even finish.

Just by way of encouragement, I don’t believe God can be ripped out of, or removed -- even in effect -- from anywhere. Omnipresence definitely has its perks!

As for governing authorities, isn’t there something, in the bible at least, that says that they’re established by God? Though when I think of some governing bodies, I’m tempted to ask Him, “Are Ya sure Ya wanna establish those guys as authorities?”!

 

[1robin]

Just by way of encouragement, I don’t believe God can be ripped out of, or removed -- even in effect -- from anywhere. Omnipresence definitely has its perks!

I did not mean his presence I meant his influence. As in our free will discussion God does not normally act without concent in this type of way. If we reject him he withdraws his influence. The reality of what is going on in our schools is consistent with this claim. We deny him and he denies us. We immediately go to pot and blame every one but our selves and are too pround to admit that we rejected God or that he even exists. These days we even deny that wrong is actually wrong.

As for governing authorities, isn’t there something, in the bible at least, that says that they’re established by God? Though when I think of some governing bodies, I’m tempted to ask Him, “Are Ya

sure Ya wanna establish those guys as authorities?”!

That is a confusing biblical claim that I do not understand. Coupled with the verses that say that bad Judges are punishment of a wicked nation helps a little but I am not competant to debate that teaching. The one thing it can't mean is that all authorities are Godly people.

 

[Astravalon]

I did not mean his presence I meant his influence. As in our free will discussion God does not normally act without concent in this type of way. If we reject him he withdraws his influence. The reality of what is going on in our schools is consistent with this claim. We deny him and he denies us. We immediately go to pot and blame every one but our selves and are too pround to admit that we rejected God or that he even exists. These days we even deny that wrong is actually wrong.

That likely falls into the category of His "permissive will", right?

That is a confusing biblical claim that I do not understand. Coupled with the verses that say that bad Judges are punishment of a wicked nation helps a little but I am not competant to debate that teaching. The one thing it can't mean is that all authorities are Godly people.

Oh I agree totally that just because He might put them in authority doesn't necessarily mean they're Godly.