Spirituality
29 Oct 12
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by divegeesteri agree with robbie on this one. jesus didn't take sides. he didn't seek to overthrow governments.
No it does not "teach" that anywhere in the text at all - it is a doctrine created by your organisation.
he simply said "you guys worry too much about this earthly stuff, just love each other and be nice. and peter, pass me the doogie, man" (i might be paraphrasing a bit)
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo members of your organisation can serve the state and the crown (in the case of the U.K.) and enforce its laws on a case-by-case basis - according to "the dictates of his conscience" - with regard to fellow citizens?
a Christian would need to take into consideration in what capacity he is serving the
state and whether it complies with the dictates of his conscience, he could not serve
with good conscience in the military, nor in a munitions factory by way of example.
Again it is futile to draw any hard and fast rules, each Christian must be guided by his ...[text shortened]... in accordance with his understanding. Unlike Christ we also don't walk on
water, just saying.
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou miss the point; being neutral was impossible in terms of democratic choice as there was no democracy. You were either Roman or not, you obeyed Roman law or you got nailed up.
i agree with robbie on this one. jesus didn't take sides. he didn't seek to overthrow governments.
he simply said "you guys worry too much about this earthly stuff, just love each other and be nice. and peter, pass me the doogie, man" (i might be paraphrasing a bit)
The question should be; if Jesus lived in a free democratic society would he have voted? That question is not addressed in scripture as robbie claims and there in no parallel (nor can there be) with the JW's apparent claims of being politically neutral in a free democratic country.
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by divegeesterI think it does, in fact, perhaps you can cite a single instance where Christ became
No it does not "teach" that anywhere in the text at all - it is a doctrine created by your organisation.
politically involved with the issues of his fellow Jews, I can think of several which
demonstrate his impartiality, the fact that you need to attack, once again, our
organisation is a reflection either of your lack of Biblical knowledge and understanding
or a prejudiced disposition, who can say?
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by divegeesterthis example would be better if you adjusted it: "would a prom king be executed because the president of the US thought him being named prom-king is a threat to his rule?"
What an odd thing to say; do you think a prom-king would be executed for winning the competition?
jesus, like the prom-king, won a popularity contest. that doesn't make him political yet. he time and again said his kingdom is not in this world. he never participated in political issues. so robbie is correct in saying jesus was a-political. what he isn't correct about is that somehow, jesus suggests everyone to do the same.
30 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI actually do not know anyone who is a witness and who is employed by the
So members of your organisation can serve the state and the crown (in the case of the U.K.) and enforce its laws on a case-by-case basis - according to "the dictates of his conscience" - with regard to fellow citizens?
government to enforce laws, not a single police man, not a traffic warden, not a
member of the judiciary. I do know a lollipop lady who enforces traffic regulation to
help children safely cross the road at school time, presumably she does so, acting
within the constraints of her conscience, indeed, i cannot see how helping children
safely cross the road would conflict with her conscience, can you?
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou once told us there are Jehovah's Witnesses who are judges. So there are some, even if you don't personally know them, yes?
I actually do not know anyone who is a witness and who is employed by the
government to enforce laws, not a single police man, not a traffic warden, not a
member of the judiciary.
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFI cannot say, i dont know any. One of the brothers way back was a judge, like in
You once told us there are Jehovah's Witnesses who are judges. So there are some, even if you don't personally know them, yes?
1920's whether he continued to practice as a member of the judiciary after he became
a witness, i have no idea.
30 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou clearly suggested that there are Jehovah's Witnesses who are judges nowadays because you used the bit of information to explain why some JWs currently earn more than $100,000 in the U.S.
I cannot say, i dont know any. One of the brothers way back was a judge, like in
1920's whether he continued to practice as a member of the judiciary after he became
a witness, i have no idea.
30 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWell i dont know any, sorry. I have really no idea why some in the U.S earn more than
You clearly suggested that there are Jehovah's Witnesses who are judges nowadays because you used the bit of information to explain why some JWs currently earn more than $100,000 in the U.S.
$100,000 dollars, the two witnesses that i do know from the states, both Texans, earn
nothing like $100,000 dollars.