₦airaland Forum

Crystyano:
Existence has no beginning....

Quite agree.
We are hamstrung by the limitations of language in these matters.
I generally view "origin" in this context as "bedrock" - in other words, its like saying such and such is the bedrock of existence.
That bedrock, is of course eternal, and without beginning.
Again, this is one of the fundamental ideas people have in mind when they speak of "God."

Crystyano:
How did you know there is a larger consciousness when you can't conceive it

I did not say there was.

You said you can't tell IF

Exactly.

.....then you say there IS....

Never said this.

Crystyano:
It's about the uselessness of the meaning of the word....

While I understand what you may mean here - the frustration that comes with such a loaded word which is used in different ways by different people, I think the vast majority of people have certain fundamentals in mind when they use that word. For most, at the minimum, it connotes an ultimate source or origin of existence.

What is consciousness

Is it something that can be associated with the entire universe!??

The answer is no!

We are too small to address this question.

As I wtote to Pr0ton above -

You have no idea if the universe itself is a conscious being of a different kind. A cell in your body is conscious to a certain degree. It reacts to stimulus and performs other tasks. Nonetheless it is an infinitesimal part of a larger consciousness which is so far beyond it, that it lacks the capacity to conceive it.

And yet it is within it.

Pr0ton:
What I'm not willing to tolerate is why anyone would insist on a God (as what it is rightly defined as) as a possible explanation to the origin of the universe. Having a calmer and deeper reflection doesn't mean you have to consider everything proposed to be the origin of the universe especially when this particular one as a human history from wishful thinking.

The essentials of the idea of God are not entirely "wishful thinking." Some of the basic precepts can be grounded in philosophy and logic. A simple example is the quality of transcendence. This is the idea that whatever caused the universe to begin cannot itself be the universe - thus - the universe being material, the cause must be immaterial, the universe being of time and space, the cause must be beyond time and space, and so on. In short, that the cause transcends the universe.

I'm willing to tolerate an explanation that has a solid basis (big bang, string theory, multiverses) not one you can just conjure up from thin air like God.

The Multiverse theory you referred to is notoriously from thin air. It is a mere fanciful postulation without any conceivable proof. It not only lacks proof but is in fact unprovable - at least not until the day you find a way out of this universe. It is strange how atheists often hear this fanciful term and lend it greater credence than the idea of a God.

Like I have said over and over, an idea of God comes from theism and this idea sprung from wishful thinking because...

Saying that the idea of God comes from theism is somewhat tautological - it is like saying that the idea of stars comes from astronomy (just a rough example - I know you can see stars). Or like saying that the idea of logic comes from philosophy or vice versa. Its a very odd statement if you stop to think about it. Theism is not some generative tank that somehow pre-existed the idea of God. Because this is what you insinuate when you say that "the idea of God comes from Theism" . . . the underlying suggestion is that theism somehow existed somewhere and then it generated the idea of God. This is a weird way to speak.

The idea of God - a creator being - has been intrinsic to mankind from time immemorial - throughout the ages and across the entire spectrum of races and peoples such that there is no culture on Earth that lacks a conception of God. You cannot therefore so easily and rather carelessly suggest that there is some school of thought specifically somewhere that generated the idea of God for all else. That simply is not the case.

The question of origin doesn't have to have God attached to it.

Not necessarily God as defined and characterized by religion.
One thing you need to understand is that the word "God" is loaded and means different things to different people. The main unifying element in that word is the understanding of it as the origin of all existence. Therefore whatever you describe as the origin is exactly what some people somewhere conceive of as God. For example, if you describe the origin as primordial energy, this is exactly what some perceive and describe as God.

This is why science wins over beliefs everytime when it comes to explaining why things are in this world.

Science only ever addresses the "how" and never the "why." And even at that it is limited to the physical world alone. It is limited to the material . And the "why" of a question is cardinal in terms of arriving at the true meaning of something. Another rough example will suffice - You come across a book. You may want to know how it was written. Science can tell you how - perhaps it was written on paper refined from wood from a tree and by ink from a particular chemical. That is the material and scientific answer. It tells you little or nothing in terms of the meaning of the book. To get the meaning, you will have to read the book. But even that is limited in terms of answering the question "why" the book was written. Because the answer to that question may be as strange as that it was written because the author wanted to convey a message to a loved one, or because he was bored, or because he wanted to enrich himself, or because he wanted to spark an ideology, or because he wanted political power, or because he wanted to be famous, or damn it, because he wanted to impress his mistress.

Do not be deceived - we still do not know "how" the universe came about - all theories notwithstanding - much less "why!"

When scientists recourse to quantum physics to try and explain un-triggered movements, most of the time they are not necessarily saying that was how the world started but instead showing it is likely possible it started that way since things that wouldn't make sense in classic physics (our world as we see it) do make sense in quantum physics. Un-triggered movements seem to occur in quantum physics. If our universe was at a point where it was infinitesimal small (quantum) it is possible it acted the way these quantum particles act (un-triggered movements)

The excuse of/ allusion to virtual particles in a quantum vacuum is dead on arrival as there is no perfect vacuum observed anywhere. The said quantum vacuums contain low gaseous pressure and as such the excuse dies before taking off.

The fact that strange things happen in the quantum world shows how limited our brain is in the knowledge of our universe and how any answer to the questions of the origin of the universe can not be reliable including answers like God that tend to make sense to us in the classic world.

The fact that strange things happen in the quantum world was enough to frighten and humble Einstein. Is it not enough to frighten and humble you? What do you really know, oh human being?

Could you then stop using the word God? If your source of the universe doesn't imply consciousness then it can't be God. The definition of God implies consciousness.

Consciousness itself is a mystery. I trust you have heard of "the hard problem of consciousness." If finite human consciousness is such a mystery please let us not even attempt to define or circumscribe what sort of consciousness may or may not exist at a transcendental level. That will not just be presumptuous, it will be foolhardy.

Just imagine an amoeba attempting to grasp your consciousness, and you may have a faint idea of how absurd any such attempt may be.

The vastness that we have observed has come without consciousness.

We still dont know this. Because we only have a faint understanding of consciousness and even then only of our consciousness. You have no idea if the universe itself is a conscious being of a different kind. A cell in your body is conscious to a certain degree. It reacts to stimulus and performs other tasks. Nonetheless it is an infinitesimal part of a larger consciousness which is so far beyond it, that it lacks the capacity to conceive it.

And yet it is within it.

From my point of view, you still need basic humility in matters like this. You presume too much. We are too little to make the sort of presumptions you are jumping to. This is why Agnosticism in these matters remains the wisest, most honest and most enlightened position a man can take.

If we are going strictly by definition of agnosticism (without knowledge), you could imply this to me as you could other areas of life/thinking that doesn't have to do with subjects about God/gods. When it comes to the existence of God/gods, I'm not agnostic. I'm an atheist.

Apply agnosticism in virtually all existential matters.

Cogito ergo sum - is as much as a man can know for certain.
Everything else is up for grabs.
The world you see could even be a simulation.
Very likely is.

achorladey:
Here it is again

49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

This really nails it.
If after this reference, they persist in their one-upmanship, there really remains nothing to be said.

Pr0ton:
Atheists aren't claiming they know everything. No one knows how everything came to be. But as to questions about God/gods atheists claim to know they don't exist, at least in the sense of rationality, else we can all come up with something out of thin air and claim no one can say for sure it doesn't exist.

There are deep philosophical arguments for the existence of a transcendental instigation of the universe which I believe, (no offense intended sincerely) - require calmer and deeper reflection than you appear willing to tolerate.

I found it odd and a little amusing that you asked why anyone would even contemplate a God in the first place. Odd, because the question of origin is so natural to humans, so intrinsic to our being, that it pops into the minds of even very little children.

If a universe that is vastly without consciousness exists and runs on its own, why do we demand consciousness be related to it?

Small problem - current science tends to disclose a beginning. Un-triggerred movement is not known to us. People try to evade this by recourse to quantum physics - which hardly anyone understands yet - but not even quantum physics constitutes a sufficient answer to the problem posed here.

Mind you, the question of the existence of God neednt depend on the ideas of the theist. God neednt be conscious in the sense evoked by most theist thought.

Furthermore, you are in no position to assert that the Universe is vastly without consciousness. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on Earth, and we, standing within one grain of sand, have not yet been able to explore the next grain of sand. There is thus a great need for us to be humble. We know practically nothing as yet.

If you ask me about the origin of everything, I will simply tell you I don't know.

There you go - This is pure and simple agnosticism.

Janosky:
[i]Throwing childish tantrum on a public forum won't help you.

It's further a shame, if you are so limited with the use of English that you do not understand what it means when someone says, "Its a shame that. . ."

I wonder where you saw a tantrum.
In your mind perhaps.

@ Pr0ton -

"Gnosis" - refers to knowledge. "Gnostic" refers to persons with knowledge - usually of a special, deep, esoteric or mystical kind.
"Agnostic" simply refers to a person who declares an absence of knowledge.

In short, the gnostic says that he knows, the agnostic simply says that he doesnt know.
And that, my friend, is the wisest, most honest, and most enlightened position to take, not just on the question of the existence of god or Gods, but on the question of all existence.

1Sharon:
Why did sub-saharan Africa never invent the wheel?

I would be careful with this blanket presumption.
There is much that conquering races tend to destroy deliberately in terms of the history, culture, science, religion and writings of a conquered people. Ask the Inca, the Aztec, and company.

Where is your evidence they crossed the Sahara?

My personal suspicion is that there have been lost generations of humans in Egypt and that some of the relics observed there may not even have been built by the recognized comparatively recent occupants of Egypt.

On the question of ancient Egyptians being black, again, I do not know this to definitively be the case - nonetheless, once again, I would be cautious because it is a fact that there are many statues in Egypt which disclose such flat noses and thick lips that if nothing else, they must give one cause for pause. Similar statues are also found in the Americas by the way.

In addition to this, there was a historical time when Egypt was conquered/ occupied by Kush.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Sudan/The-kingdom-of-Kush

https://www.worldhistory.org/Kush/

Janosky:

As you follow JWs study Bible reach, you & Achorladey LEAVE Bible truth dey misquote Acts 10:35.

Acts 10:35 = Acts 15:9,14-17, Every nation of the Gentiles are chosen to bear Jehovah's name.
Acts chapter 10, the conversion of Cornelius,a Gentile,is very luminous.

Prior to Jesus ransom sacrifice, only the Jews were chosen to bear Jehovah's name, Numbers 6:27 & 2 Chronicles 7:14.

These Boys, Wake up from your self deception.

Shame, you cannot see the parallel.
Oh well.

MaxInDHouse:
Just as anybody from any nation is acceptable among Jehovah's Witnesses as long as the person is prepared to fear our God and obey the rules binding us together as one.
That's the PRACTICAL APPLICATION of what you're reading!

This is nothing but cultist exclusivist fanaticism.

You're a liar!

And you know this how?

If you've never been to any other religion apart from JWs what exactly makes you feel God's people are wrong in any way since you never attended the churches of Christendom?

Looks like you have difficulties reading or might be semi-literate, because I did not say any of the foregoing.

Next time just say you're an Apostate instead of arguing aimlessly claiming you're agnostic.
Thanks for your time, if you were truly an exJW you should know that it's wrong for a JW to chat with you. Romans 16:17; 2John 10-11
So goodbye!

This is just evidence that you are enslaved by an exclusivist cult.
Take good care, and wake up one day.
Good luck.

achorladey:
It brings you in close contact with those you believe Jesus is not expected to be with in the first place and most time Jesus speaks delightful words during such settings with these same set of people as captured by these example in Matthew 9:1-13

He stated categorically and told the Pharisees against his actions that those you think I should not walk with are the people I came for.

On point. In fact, he says that many will think they are his servants, even haven cast out demons in his name, and he will say, depart from me, I know ye not. This should serve as a warning to JW and all those others who smugly insist that its them and no one else.

MaxInDHouse:
That's why you need to study the Bible well because even Jesus was not mention prior to his coming, it was prophecies about the Christ he fulfilled that made him qualified to be the Christ. For instance a Jew can argue from now till eternity that Jesus is not the Christ because there was no prophecy that specifically mention the name "JESUS" rather what Isaiah penned down is "Emmanuel"! Isaiah 7:14
So if it's about mentioning of specific name then Jesus couldn't have qualified to be called the Christ!
As regards the Illustration Jesus is talking about how false religious leaders only care for people when people are watching.
Only Jehovah's Witnesses are doing what that prophecy teaches today, they will only come to visit people in their homes and you'll see the changes in gradually whereas your religious leaders (Pastors) who never taught you anything will expect you to act in line with what is common as holiness instead of what you can defend yourself with the scriptures!

The true God does not tolerate interfaith

Acts 10 vs 34-35:
Then Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism, but welcomes those from every nation who fear Him and do what is right."

Stop deceiving yourself!
It was after you've been scammed big time by the Yahoo Plus big boys that you gave up on your former religion. So if you now gave up on them you need to calm down and look well instead of taking sides with your former pastors who scammed you!

I have never paid tithe in my life and have never belonged to any of the sorts of Churches you describe: I have never had or followed a pastor. However in my youth I was a JW.
Please stop making presumptions regarding a total stranger.

achorladey:
He cannot apply it and will never want to because other Christian denominations out their are false Christians and are not righteous

How they fail to see the fundamentalist intolerance in this baffles me. They will probably point to the doctrine of the Trinity as point of first reference (Janosky has already done this).

They would conveniently forget that JW are not the only non-Trinitarian Christian sect out there. There are several unitarian Christian groups.

MaxInDHouse:
This illustration is talking about how Jehovah's Witnesses LOVE their neighbours!

Not only did the illustration not mention Jehovah's Witnesses as an organized body, such a body did not exist at the time. And the illustration showed, if nothing else, that one does not need to belong to any organized body to obtain salvation. He clearly said that anyone who loves God and loves his neighbour will live. Why are you complicating things?

Your religious leaders have robbed you off lots of valuables, they have enriched themselves with your tithes and offerings, their counterparts see you and walk away looking for their own mugus. All these are people you guys do revere as men of God and they keep lying to you that you must pay tenth part of your earnings, first salary of the year and other possessions making life miserable for billions.

I am not a Christian. Indeed I subscribe to no religion. I am mostly agnostic.

Janosky:
Matthew 19:21-22,This man may have loved his neighbor as himself, still he missed the mark- he refused to follow Jesus & worship the God of Jesus Christ.
Jesus said love of neighbor is not enough.
[/b]

I quoted Jesus' own answer to the question of salvation, and you dare to contradict it.
This is nothing new. Most Christians are happy to trample on the word of Christ in the interest of their favoured dogma. Its not new to me, seeing Christians dismiss the words of Christ with a wave of the hand.

There you have it!

Janosky:
Proverbs 24:16 & Psalms 37:24
"For the righteous falls seven times and rises again, but the wicked stumble in times of calamity"

Jehovah's humble servants will fall many times, but Jehovah's loyal love see's us through.

Good. Now go ye forth and generously apply this standard to others as well.

Janosky:
Your Pastorpreneurs predictions about the end of coronavirus.
Your gods of men prediction about the year 2020, both are still in the pipeline

And how many times did Charles Taze Russell and his associates predict the end of the world?

MaxInDHouse:
Well he doesn't give more than two options so it's either you're with him or against him unlike the religious title chiefs of the first century who will give their listeners several options in the public (you can go to any Bible living Church) Jesus will emphatically say you must follow him (it's either you're one of Jehovah's Witnesses or not a worshiper of our God)

The only problem with this is your presumption that in order to follow him, one must be a JW.
The parable of the Good Samaritan debunks this.
Remember the context -

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”
So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.
Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”
The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”
Jesus then replied with a story.....

DappaD:
LOL! Fanatical intolerance because I chose not to continue the discussion with you ? You would rather want me to continue against my will ?

Please go and resolve your issue with apostle Paul first before we can continue our chat. That’s the assignment I’ve given you.

Toodles.

You can give me no assignment my friend.
Boredom is all that tempted me into playing around with small minded fanatics such as you folk.
So long!

DappaD:
Be that as it may, I’ve lost all interests in having further discussion with you. I take religious people seriously because at least I know they stand for some thing. Not someone who agrees with, yet still disagrees with the Bible at the same time.

This simply reveals the radical fundamentalist and fanatical intolerance which my original question sought to bring into the light.
Thank you, my job is done.

DappaD:
No, I do not see the relevance of that parable in this discussion because Jesus wasn’t talking about associating with an unrepentant sinner but about someone who was of a different tribe/background.

You see, -

1. There were also theological/ scriptural/ historical disagreements between the Jews and the Samaritans.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Samaritan

2. The significance of "the priest and Levite" are cardinal to this discussion.
Don't tell me that is lost on you?

Whether you’re religious or not, I don’t really see how that helps your case here.

I mentioned it just so you understand I do not subscribe to biblical inerrancy.

Oh and please spare me the condescending attitude, you don’t know me from anywhere just as I don’t know you. Keep the mutual respect as it is and don’t go beyond that to feed your ego.

Any condescension you imagine arises in your mind only perhaps on account of the prick of conscience.

DappaD:
@DeepSight, the parable of the good Samaritan is actually inconsequential in this discussion. We’re talking about someone who sinned/deviated from the truth, and what should be done in that case. Not you using a Biblical outlier like the good Samaritan parable as some kind of front when it doesn’t even fit into context.

Its pitifully sad if you do not see the relevance of the parable to this discussion. Because that shows you do not even understand the discussion. Or the implications of your own doctrines.

The parable is directly relevant to the matter at hand.

P.S. I’m pleased to let you know I don’t feel compelled to read your long message after you’ve said that the apostle Paul’s teachings contradicted that of Christ’s. Your message can be directed to the apostle Paul and not me.
Thank you.

I am completely non-religious. I do not subscribe to any religion. In my youth though, I used to be one of you.
Time to shun me?

DappaD and MaxinDHouse -

I feel compelled to share with you my analysis of the Parable of the Good Samaritan from years ago on this forum.


- - - - -- - - -

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God in Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.


Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Now Wikipedia says -


Thus note carefully the context – the Samaritan symbolizes people who are deemed to be “on the wrong side” of correct religious doctrine at the time and people who were accordingly “despised.”

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

I need to point out also the Imagery of Brotherly Affiliation. Note this from Wikipedia –
Quote


Much may be said – but basically there was this divide existing between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbour” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighbourliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighbourliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbour than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friends, I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

This is so simple and so pure – and should come so naturally to the Christian who is steeped in the ideas of Christ – which ideas tended towards love and doctrinal flexibility: Jesus statements on the observance of the Sabbath and other such – just show the flexibility I speak about – which tends towards –spirit and truth – and not outward forms.


Please who do you think the Priest and the Levite represent? And why did he specifically use these categories of people as examples?

Yippeedaniel:
Ever wonder why anyone that left jw becomes a hater of the organization?. But no one who leave church become hater of da former church. Ever wonder y we have so many ex jw channel of YouTube? Over 69k on reddit but no single ex catholics, redeem, deeper life?. Theres more to it. This ex jw might have a point, Theres something driving them to do all this. I see many Nigerian exjw inda next 20yrs.

I am speaking because I used to be one in my youth.
I since grew into agnostic-deism.

MaxInDHouse:
If you want us to TEACH you we will because it's the work we are assigned to do but if you're not interested there's no problem!

This is arrogance and its UN-Christ-Like.
Christ taught humility, not this sort of proud presumption.

achorladey:
How did Jesus treats TAX COLLECTORS and PAGANS?

SHUN THEM ABI?

GBAM!

DappaD:
In Jesus’ day, someone who wasn’t a Jew/Jewish proselyte i.e. a Gentile was viewed as a persona non grata.

So when Jesus was giving instructions to his followers on how to resolve issues at Matthew 18:15-17, he said that after the first, second and third steps to resolve the matter yielded no fruit, the person who is trying to resolve the issue should view the wrongdoer as a man of the nations[Gentile] and a tax collector.

Why the use of those terms in particular ? Because a Gentile and a tax collector were both viewed by the Jews as outcasts and sinners. Luke 19:7, Acts 11:2

Jesus was telling his followers to cease association with such persons who remained adamant and wanted to disrupt the peace of the congregation.
Was he inviting his followers to hatred ?
If no, please redefine what love means.

It is well noted in the gospels that he associated freely with "tax collectors and sinners." Why?
Secondly the Parable of The Good Samaritan should suffice to help you.
How do you read it when he says, then, "a despised Samaritan" came along. . . ?

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus never used physical sword against anyone neither did he support using it but he clearly stated that he did not come for peace {Matthew 10:34-39} perhaps you should tell me what he meant in those verses if not causing division in the families!

My friend, it's either you're for Jesus or against him, so choose to be with Jesus and see the reality of what Jesus said. That's what we are practicing among Jehovah's Witnesses!

Jesus' prime teaching was love. Even for enemies.
I therefore cannot imagine the man who said "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" - supporting this sort of radical fundamentalist intolerance.

DappaD:
Read the following Scriptures carefully and try to be objective in your reasoning, can you do that ?


Romans 16:17

“Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.”


1Corinthians 5:11

“But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”

2John 9-11

“Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son.  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”


Do you believe that the first century Christians were cultists to have laid down such rules ?

Honestly, I don’t think your problem is with the Witnesses. Actually, your case should be against the Bible itself but you’re using the critique of Witnesses as a smokescreen.

To many people, the Bible is a bag filled with jellybeans and gravel, so they try to select the ones that are enticing to them and leave the ones that doesn’t sit right with them.

But that’s different when it comes to Jehovah’s Witnesses because we accept all the 66 books of the Bible as inspired of God so every part must be considered in our worship. 2Timothy 3:16

If its a biblical teaching, one must say it is definitely not a Christ-like teaching. The teachings of Jesus stand in contradistinction to this Pauline fundamentalist discriminatory intolerance. This is not different from the worst sort of Nazi antisemitism.

There is no way Jesus would have supported this sort of hate-preachment.

uptimum123:
The people's Governor is at it again. Anywhere there's progress is where you will find him.

Sanwo Olu the endsars miscreants slayer

How much are you guys paid for this ? ? ?

FreeStuffsNG:
I did sir. It's vacuous and evasive. He definitely has case to answer for not being truthful and will eventually face disciplinary committee to defend the unethical conduct he is being alleged of perpetuating by inserting falsehoods into the report. This issue won't end with a white paper.

Conscience is an open wound, only Truth can heal it( Uthman Dan Fodio).

Kudos to the Lagos State Government for the dedication and transparency. This is a classic example of how Government towered over folks like Mr Ebun Adegboruwa in terms of character and truth. It's clear who the liars are.

Now is the time to investigate how those fictitious names and falsehoods got into the Lekkilies EndSars report. Mr Jelili Ownonikoko already reported that it was inserted by Mr Ebun Adegboruwa but we need to find out.

How can an individual who faced a panel to tell the panel members that his brother was not killed at Lekki end up with him and his dead brother both declared killed at Lekki ? shocked
We really need to investigate who compromised or sabotaged the panel's report. LASG, FG, EFCC,ICPC, NA, LAHA and the panel members must unravel this mystery; this is a national embarrassment. It's completely unacceptable.

You are the national embarrassment.