₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
So those converted Egyptians can't teach the babies the commandments?

They left Egypt with their own children nah!

tctrills:
Let's make this simple for both of us
While most Christian groups interpret the call to go the extra mile as a call to service, the JW saw it as a church imposed lockdown extension. That's just the difference. And I can't blame you for viewing the Savior's call as a lockdown extension. You guys always want to be different.

I hear you!

Janosky:
Question 1 answer: 1 Timothy 5:8.
Did your Bible exonerate Jehovah's servants from paying their bills?
If JWs knock on your door to appeal for financial aid ,in order to go the extra mile you demand, will you respond & help them?
Una go push am to front page topic on NL.
Question 2 answer:
JWs went the extra mile to hold our weekly Bible study meetings online.
Hebrews 10:23-25,Every JW made lots of personal sacrifice to participate in our online Bible study program.
But,Christendom's business centers & Pastorpreneurs could not sustain online church services because they recorded financial losses & it was not bringing in the immense profits that accrued from the usual attendance offline.
The Pastorpreneurs went the extra mile to put pressure on the Government to allow them reopen their business centers.

The boy wants to lie yet he did it like a child!

He doesn't want to accept the fact that only a handful few will be in Jesus' spiritual Ark while billions will perish just as it occurred in Noah's days! Luke 17:26-27

He's really bitter that i'm showing him the practical application of what Jesus taught and how only Jehovah's Witnesses are doing it!

tctrills:
Do you mean I should tell you how going the extra mile in service to others applies to me? Because I have been trying to go the extra mile in service and billions of Christians have also sought to follow the Saviors teaching. Trust me, much more 8.7 million people engage in the service of their fellow men. 100 of millions of Christians each day show extraordinary service in their places of work and communities. One of my workers would not go home until all the days task is done even if it is 6 pm. When I was in school, I had a roommate that took it upon himself to sweep the stairs and corridor of his hostel. In the US, I have seen churches organize community service to clean up the beach or to feed the homeless.
So bro it applies to the billions of Christians only that they don't interpret it to mean an extended lockdown.

Ọmọ so you don't have any specific group and how they applied what Jesus taught practically you just want to throw it into the air even Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Traditionalists all can claim they're applying it individually anyway they choose to!

You're really really funny ọmọ as in are you a comedian?
Jesus Christ counsel his disciples and here you are throwing it out as if it could be applied by all kinds of people then it means all people believe in Jesus shey?

tctrills:
Yes 8.7 million is a small drop in the human population and all 8.7 million of you are wrong. When Jesus Christ taught us to go the extra mile he was not teaching us to continue with a government lockdown even after the government had called it off.
He taught you to go the extra mile in service. When you are compelled to serve on mile, go another mile in service. The law had nothing to do with imposing extra days of lockdown on yourself. 0

Please remind me how this is applied in your church practically after all JWs say what they believe and PRACTICED it!

Male Jews don't keep long hairs that's why Paul said it's a dishonour {1Corinthians 11:14} but the world is going from bad to worse so it's no longer a matter of dishonour in the world of unbelievers!

FemiAjani:
I'm not quite in agreement with you in saying that we need the same moral source, but I'll play along with that for a little bit. Let's say we'd need some god-imposed moral standard, rather than one we collectively construct, in order for peaceful coexistence to be possible. You see the Bible as that standard of morality. (Or Jesus is that source or something similar. At least, you seem to be working in that direction.) Now let's say your neighbor agrees that there needs to be a common standard for morality, but they see the Koran as the right standard. The two of you are trying to look at the same subject -- God and God's moral dictates -- but seeing very different things. That's not something that's objective. What right would he have to impose Sharia law on you, or what right would you have to impose Christian law on him? How would you two coexist in the framework of theistic morality without weapons and task forces? I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it's not an atheism problem. Everyone being an atheist wouldn't prevent us from implementing workable solutions to it, and everyone not being a theist wouldn't make the problem go away. If anything, basing morality on theism seems to have a worse track record in addressing the problem without violence.

What I'm proposing as an alternative is that we can base our morals and mores on something innate to humanity, something which we all share and which we can actually agree is there. Things like our shared desires for survival, comfort, and individual agency. The common source that we'd return to is the human condition and the needs and preferences which arise from it. This is something we can do without first settling whether a God exists, which god it is, which translations of which texts correctly convey that God's moral precepts, and what the correct way of interpreting those texts is. Since agreeing on those God questions is something that history shows humanity DOESN'T DO WELL, we shouldn't hinge our hopes of coexistence on making that agreement happen. At the very least, we should implement a pragmatic, working framework for coexistence on the off chance that everyone agreeing on God-imposed morality doesn't magically happen by the end of the week. And since we already (kind of) have that framework, we should maintain it to get by, rather than reject it out of pique simply because it doesn't involve a belief in a God.

Here's the key point. There's a difference between a common moral standard and a common moral source. A common moral standard would be us agreeing on "don't kill people", perhaps with some debate about edge cases like accidents, self-defense, and what qualifies as a person. A common moral source might be the idea that moral standards come from the Christian God as understood by... well, take your pick. Put them together and you'd have "Don't kill people, because God says not to kill people." But which is more important to coexistence? Agreeing on the standard, or agreeing on the source? If I can agree with the NIFB on the standard that we shouldn't kill people without agreeing on the source, then we'd go on not killing each other even if we don't agree on the details of why we shouldn't kill each other. That sounds great. Coexisting requires more than not killing each other, but it's a good start. But suppose you and someone in the extreme Christian right white-supremacist sphere agree on a moral source (the Christian God) but not the same standard. They think mass murder to spark a race war is the moral thing to do, and you don't. Is that a good recipe for coexistence? No. What we need is a common standard, or at least a rough consensus on that standard in order to get by. If we have that, then agreeing on the source of that standard isn't actually important.

What exactly is the question you want to ask?

Please go straight to your question and allow me to answer!

tctrills:
Well I judge by your interpretation of the scripture. It's you who believe that Christ meant you should continue with government lockdowns even after the government has put an end to it. It's your PERSONAL interpretation to the word of God still you are selective.

You called what over 8.7 million people agreed upon globally "PERSONAL"?
Thank God i managed to go through school o!

cornelboy:
How long have you been doing your panel beating work?
Hope you getting enough money to feed well in this harsh economy?

Just another NEW account from the same guys, by the response you can easily unmask the OP!

Mutant001:
you are so myopic and shallow in reasoning
Let me enlighten your aninity and VACUITY
Christianity was founded by the vatican not jesus christ
Christianity=to the pagan gods of italy
Christianity was founded by the vatican to regulate laws to guide the people of rome
They had to attach the Jewish torah to the new testament of their pagan religion to make it seem infallible while it is not
That is why till now the Jews don't subscribe to christianity but judaism
May the god of your ancestors strike you dead with lighting for typing rubbish

And this is how to convince your listeners that you have something worthwhile, shey?

You try!

Mutant001:
moro.n you are worshipping the pagan gods of the vatican Christ was a prophet that came to instill morals on planet earth and preach the good news You will be very stupid to call him the supreme God of the universe
Christ in the bible was just like moses and abraham all three men were sorcerers just like the native doctor you have in your village

Just as Jesus Christ said:

By their FRUITS you will know them! Matthew 7:16

Your approach alone shows what type of god you worship.

Why not ask me what i believe about the Christ before jumping to conclusions?

Well for your information Jesus is the prophet that came in the manner of Moses {Deuteronomy 18:15-19 compare to Act 3:18-22} he is not the Almighty God that's why he directed us to his father who is our father and his God who is our God! John 20:17

So calm down and reason maturely no one is stopping you from worshiping your dead gods who can't teach you manner of approach!

FemiAjani:
I believe I sufficiently addressed your questions in my previous post. You strike me as a bit rude and impatient, and you seem to have trouble understanding my answer. If you are interested, let's try this again - please pay close attention: (1) Theistic morality is even more subjective, because objectivity is about everyone being able to look at something (god, the supernatural, the divine, etc) and agree on what they see, and that's not what happens when people base morality on belief in gods. For example, if religious morality were objective (from a supreme being, as you put it), then the Episcopalians and NIFB would agree on the subject of same-sex marriage. (2) Secular morality, meaning morality arrived at independent of our beliefs about a god, can be much more objective. It's often founded on common preferences and desires -- things like "I don't want myself or my family to get murdered" -- and is constructed in ways that objectively create a world in which those preferences are widely realized. (3) Regardless of whether you understand HOW morality not grounded in a belief in a god can work, the bottom line is that it does. So stop echoing the cliched, bigoted implication that atheists can't be moral simply because you don't understand how that's possible. You not understanding how it works doesn't give you veto power.

The first thing you should know is that the use of weapons to force people to comply with standards set by people shows that the so called morals is WEAK already.

If we call something "MORAL" we should all be moved to submit without the threat of weapons from law enforcement agents.

So instead of arguing about the existence of God try to focus on the weakness of morals that man can agree on without God!

MaxInDHouse:
What PROBLEM is MORALITY expected to solve?
I believe it's until we know the PROBLEM that we can work out a SOLUTION!

MORALITY has to do with cohabitation so in the absence of cohabitation whatever you do is morally right since it's you and you alone nobody is offended as you choose to live the way you like.
So morality is expected to solve the problem resulting from misunderstanding if we agreed on the same standard we can solve any problem that may arise from cohabitation!

MaxInDHouse:
If your morality is not from a SUPREME BEING do you expect your neighbour to develop his own or comply with yours?

NO!
If my morality doesn't come from a SUPREME BEING then i can't impose it on my neighbour which takes us back to the starting point, since two wrongs can't make a right then we can't agree meaning there is no morality!

MaxInDHouse:
If each person just have to develop his or her own morality how do we cohabit peacefully?

NO WAY!

Each human is unique on his/her own so in the absence of a SUPREME BEING there can never be peaceful coexistence, we will always need weapons and task forces to impose what we call morality on our fellowman!

MaxInDHouse:
If your morality is not from a SUPREME BEING do you expect your neighbour to develop his own or comply with yours?


If each person just have to develop his or her own morality how do we cohabit peacefully?

The one and only organization where you can find answers to these two questions is JWs!

No matter what your religion is you will only get annoyed over these two questions!

I will answer but let's see if anyone from any other school of thought can answer the two questions directly!

Tamaratonye5:
Can't be good without God is an open admission that your belief in god is the only thing preventing you from killing people and stealing things.

I hope you never lose your faith, please, please keep on believing.

My friend you don't have the answer so there's no need disturbing your brains!

jaephoenix:
So no one amongst the Egyptians is worthy of receiving god's laws?

God called His own people out of Egypt {Hosea 11:1} and intelligent Egyptians left Egypt to become worshipers of the God that conquered all their gods in Egypt! Exodus 12:38

So these ones became Israelites by faith in the God of Israel!

Wilgrea7:
I'm genuinely confused
What are you talking about... What problem is morality supposed to solve? The problem of morality?
The problem I was referring to was the answer to moral questions. I said shifting the burden to a God doesn't solve the problem.. meaning it doesn't make moral problems any easier to answer.
How does what you're saying now relate to what i said?

MORALITY

Recognition of the distinction between good and evil or between right and wrong; respect for and obedience to the rules of right conduct; the mental disposition or characteristic of behaving in a manner intended to produce morally good results.

So morality supposed to help people relate well if this definition is correct. Right?

cornelboy:
Lol. Are both Seth and Enosh Jews or Israelites?

NO the name Israelites came from Jacob the grandson of Abraham and Jew came from Judah the fourth son of Jacob!

Wilgrea7:
Why did you edit my response to make it look like I said something i didn't say? What sort of game are you trying to play here?
I clearly said that hinging morality on a God doesn't solve the problem. Not that morality itself doesn't solve the problem. The statement in itself doesn't even make sense.

We are saying the same thing, you agreed with me that MORALITY will solve a PROBLEM so i asked "what problem is morality expected to solve?"

Let's know as in agree on what the problem is first then we can think of how to solve it!

cornelboy:
Your a fool man. Your blind too.
The technology your enjoying today comes from the white men not Africans or their gods.

Thank God that they came to African.
For example, it's the white that stop the cruel killing of twin in Nigeria.
Your ancestors and their gods are obviously ignorant and lack knowledge.
If they hadn't come, I can't imagine how Africa would be today. Things would be far worse.

Your gods are indeed inferior.

Many anticipates a return to idol worshiping because they have not found the TRUTH.
No sincere individual will understand Christ and think of dead gods!

sonmvayina:
I don't know..
Maxindhouse come and answer

The HOLY SPIRIT is God's active force!

Holy means Pure as in the brightest so when the Bible say God is Holy it means that He is the source of the brightest idea, thought or opinion! Isaiah 55:8-9

Holy Spirit will help it's bearer to discern thoughts and intentions {Hebrews 4:12} so as to prefer the best approach to handling difficult issues and find a solution!

So to comprehend and practically apply what you read in the messages of a spirit being you need His active force to decipher what He meant in order to get the benefits. Hence in the absence of practical benefits you only read your interpretation will not yield positive result. 2Corinthians 3:6

Sexual relations between two unmarried adults ~ Fornication
Sexual relations based on material or gain ~ Prostitution.

Fornicators enjoy mating finds it difficult to control the urge.

The prostitute in some cases may not like it but engages in the act due to the condition he/she finds himself/herself.

Wilgrea7:
Morality doesn't solve the problem. It only further extends it.

What PROBLEM is MORALITY expected to solve?

I believe it's until we know the PROBLEM that we can work out a SOLUTION!

tctrills:
I ask again sir why did you not go the extra mile with your businesses.
Now let's read the verses you mentioned to see if they relate to the topic
Luke 11:23
He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
Galatians 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Please read the verses you mention before posting.None of them answer your selective extra mile.

Luke 11:23

Applies to your churches that can't come up with the same line of thought yet claiming Christians.

Galatians 5:22-23

Applies to the work Jesus assigned to his disciples that no human government can put up any meaningful law against.

Do you get it now?

LordReed:
So he has family, is a murderer and so should be killed, according to you. LoLz.

Funny atheist!

Tamaratonye5:
Unfortunately, it's not a matter of confusion, Maximus. It's your reading and comprehension skills that seems to have you stuck and befuddled. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

The questions are for both atheists, agnostics and religionists so if you don't have the answer please let intelligent people speak!

tctrills:
It's not wise to pick my questions for me.
When you tell some the questions to ask you, it shows insincerity and a lack of confidence. But then you have made your point clears. JW are selective to going the extra mile when they feel it would affect Caesar. That is your doctrine. The Savoir did not teach that but you are entitled to your beliefs.

Now who is insincere here?

I never told you that it's not to affect Caesar rather i'm showing you the practical application of what Jesus taught that none of you can think of. Do you know any church that can figure out what Jesus meant in that verse?

Of course not because you guys will complicate issues among yourselves and end up claiming denominations after failure to agree on what Jesus taught! Luke 11:23

Whether it affects Caesar or not we must obey the authorities as long as they're not telling us to stop doing the will of our God. Act 4:18-20; 5:28-39
If the order is given to all religions and they have something worthwhile to back it up surely we must comply but then there's no law that ever say people should not speak with their neighbours {Galatians 5:22-23} except this case of COVID-19.

Do you now see why we globally complied?

Once again the two questions!

Note that this questions is for both atheists, agnostics and religionists so do not think such important questions are posed to demean atheism.
It's just a means of knowing how intelligent we are!

MaxInDHouse:
[1]If your morality is not from a SUPREME BEING do you expect your neighbour to develop his own or comply with yours?


[2]If each person just have to develop his or her own morality how do we cohabit peacefully?

Thanks!

FemiAjani:
We could ask the same about theism-based morality. If you base your morality on the Christian Bible and your two neighbors base theirs on the Muslim Koran and the 10 precepts of Buddhism, respectively, then how do you live side by side peacefully? If you base your morality on (let's say) a Catholic take on Christian morality, and your two neighbors base theirs on Orthodox and Protestant Christianity, then how do you get along peacefully? If objectivity is defined as something that different, disparate people can look at and generally agree on what they see (literally or figuratively), then no morality rooted in theism can be objective, because the theistic dogmas underlying theistic morality are not generally agreed upon. The Hindu will not agree that Moses came down the mountain bearing God's commandments to humanity, any more than the Christian will agree that the Vishnu is watching over us.

What we CAN agree on is secular morality. Not necessarily morality by only secular people, or morality that hinges on disbelieving in the existence of a god, but morality that doesn't NEED a god for us to agree with it. We start by asking basic questions -- what kind of world do we want to live in? What kind of people do we want to surround ourselves with? -- and when we do that, we arrive at some pretty similar answers with most of the people around us. We want to live in a world where we feel safe and secure, which means a world where people don't beat and rape and murder each other willy-nilly. So we work to discourage and prevent that in various ways. We won't agree that the 10 commandments are divinely-written, but we will agree that murder isn't something we want in our communities. We want to live in a world where, if something bad were to happen to us, people will support us, and so we build up social norms in which people are expected to help others in trouble. We might not agree that Confucius had any particular authority when he commanded "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself," but we can evaluate it as a sensible rule for living in a peaceful world rather than a violent one and adopt it as good advice, rather than a religious commandment. All of these preferences are common, and all of these rules are sensible and obvious steps towards those preferences, and so societies as a whole (with some individual holdouts) tend to adopt them. Regardless of whether that's objective or subjective, it happens, and it does so even if some parts of society think the morality in question comes from the dictates of the Christian God, and others think it comes from the necessities of transcending the Dharmic cycle to achieve Nirvana, and others just value human happiness and agency and think it's a good way to advance those causes. At the end of the day, secular morality works, regardless of whether we agree on the existence of a god. Not perfectly and not without friction, but it works. (And it works a far sight better than religion-based morality does, if the long trail of religious conflict stretching back into human prehistory is any indicator.) You might ask how it could work and imply that it couldn't, but the bottom line is that it does. Whether or not we explain to your satisfaction HOW it works won't change that fact.

Why you do atheists often confuse yourselves?

If you don't have the answer just say so instead of giving a lengthy epistle without the answers!

LordReed:
But you said he doesn't have any family so which is it he has a family or he doesn't have a family, make up your mind. LoLz.

Only those having the same line of thought with Him becomes His family! John 1:11-12; 17:22

tctrills:
So you saying that your selective extra mile was not to affect Caesar. This is the best answer you have offered so far.
So let's conclude. JW would only be selective with going the extra mile if that would affect Caesar.
Again, thanks for the education about church services. Now I know that you guys went the extra mile on that too. But with mask and door to door preaching you choose to go the extra 4 miles
At least now we understand ourselves better.

What you should have asked from a sincere heart is how we are able to always apply Jesus' counsel in a practical sense?

Well that's the work of God's Holy Spirit {John 16:12-13} Jesus' speeches among the first century Jews are for two categories of people:
The Jewish community in general and his own disciples!

So Jesus told his disciples that God's Holy Spirit will guide them always when it comes to the practical application of what he taught them so that there will always be peace among them though such peace can't be found in any other organization! John 14:26-27

tctrills:
Matthew 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Now my question remains unanswered.
Why have you be selective with this commandment.
You are going the extra mile in.
1. Mask wearing
2. Not preaching from door to door.
But you do not go the extra mile in
1. Remaining on lockdown and closing your businesses.
2. Having church service.
Do you understand my question now

You're just being heady, we went extra mile for what Jesus commissioned because that's what matters to him and how we handle it of utmost importance.

For your information we resume out church service few months ago after pleasing Caesar with the extra mile and now we're starting the imperson preaching, it's you who doesn't know what is happening, we gave Caesar the extra mile in what Jesus handed over to us as assignment. But as for businesses even Caesar himself will be affected that's why he ordered a stop to the lockdown on that when he didn't do the same with service to our God which has no direct effect on his governance!