₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
the ultimate mystery: GOD.

The ultimate mystery. _{*nods head*}

And what's your grouse with that? Or are you saying that he took the body that was pierced with spears up from the grave and into heaven? Ok, if he was raised by his old body, tell me why his disciples did not recognise him.

What's your obsession with this subject? Why did you fail to address the biblical grounds for the doctrine raised by stlgrnds ?

tlfacts:
The watchtower religion has false beliefs

Can you list some of them? Please don't bring Angel Michael again o!

Hello viaro

Weekend was good. Thanks for your post above. Your modesty is exemplary.

Pastor AIO:
The question for me is not whether or not God owns the world and whether we therefore have a right to everything in it. This whole business is so messy, convoluted, and distorted. And this is all because of one thing.

We are not considering that we each have an allotment in life. A portion. An appropriation. An inheritance. So therefore prosperity is not just having a lot of what the world has got to offer, but rather to have that which has been reserved for us to have.
Any preacher that says, 'look at me and how God has blessed me, if you pay your tithes then you will be similarly blessed', such a preacher is a liar. If indeed the preacher is enjoying wealth that has been appropriated for him by God then he should encourage his congregation to seek their own portion that is theirs, rather than seek something like his.
Yoruba says, A a ki fi Ori we Ori. We don't evaluate one Head (ori) by the measure of another head. Each one has got his own and should seek to come into his own. To seek for any other prosperity in this world than to prosper in the role that has been carved out for one by one's creator is at the heart of all error in the whole wide world.
Money is poisonous because it facilitates this error. I might explain why in a later post, or another thread.

Thank you.

Reading exchanges between Deep Sight and viaro can be as sweet as sitting back on a Sunday morning after breakfast and listening to Tchaikovsky or Pavarotti's renditions of Verdi. (Often, that is. Not all the time. The Reincarnation thread, for instance, was an abortion. It was like listening to that ghastly orchestra from Edinburgh, or where is it? ) In this thread, while I disagree with viaro as to the main culprits of Ps 14:1, I particularly appreciate the way he has pointed out my failure to include atheists in my op. It reminded me of a case at the high court in Ibadan a few years back. The lawyers wrote a brilliant Brief of Argument but omitted the name of the governor whose governorship was the subject of the suit. When the court ruled against the governor, the man told the world that the judgment was no skin off his nose because it did not mention his name! Most people thought he was being mischievous, of course, since the gist of the ruling was that the process that brought him to power did not comply with the law. But a few thought he had a point and when the lawyers for his opponents were preparing their Respondent's Brief to his appeal, what did they do? They inserted his name in every page where that could be done.

Deep Sight:
Viaro - as usual you quibble over words and split hairs as though you were a tailor kniiting up a cloth from the hair of Samson.

I think he does it like a Harvard professor peer reviewing an article for the journal Nature. Which is perfectly fine, as all it does in essence is to increase the quality of debate. It helps you get a truly complete view of the subject long after you thought you had it all wrapped up.

Deep Sight: MyJoe's analogy about Aids was simple, clear, lucid and intelligible - for the commonsensical, that is.

It simply asserts the following -

1. That Action does not always connote belief

2. That inaction does not always connote unbelief

3. Thus that affirmation within the heart is the true affirmation

4. And consquently that a person who through his actions and thoughts belies a truth he espouses; really does not hold such a truth.

Right

viaro: His analogy with AIDS was off the beat - that much he even agreed.

No. I never agreed it was offbeat, but I agreed to this:

viaro: (because that analogy suffered an inferential limitation)

As I already opined, this applies to just about every analogy.

Deep Sight: 3.   Thus the cardinal point is that his ACTIONS SHOW GREATER UNBELIEF IN AIDS THAN MBEKI’S WORDS DID!

Thanks. This captures everything from the beginning to the end. There is nothing to add to it!

Deep Sight: I hope its become clear now for you: that this is what such people have said IN THEIR HEARTS. . . that there is no God!

Pastor Rich: There is God.
Mr Tom: Really?
Dr Harry: There is no God.
Mr Tom: Really?
Pastor Rich: There is God. He struck a man with leprosy who took what he had no right to take. (2 Kings 5:27. See also Joshua 7)
Mr Tom: (scared) There must indeed be God!
Dr Harry: Remember the money Pastor Rich collected from you the last time he came here? The one he said he would give half to God and half to the poor? He stole it. He kept it all for himself. And he is still here.
Mr Tom: There is no God!

viaro:
I disagree with you, for that verse is not primarily addressing the believer, but the godless unbeliever. That statement is made twice over in the book of Psalms - (a) Psalm 14:1; (b) and Psalm 53:1 - and standing alone unqualified, it shows that it was not addressing the believer, as it is clear that even the one who categorically denies the existence of God is no better in his "abominable iniquity".

Yes. The believer and the unbeliever may both do iniquity. Or they may not. If the Psalmist was thus addressing the doer of iniquity, why restrict him to the vociferous atheist? This I have often witnessed, hence this thread.

I would not like to belabour the point I already made: that, we should not be so broad in our generalisations. When you say "Christians", you're making a far more broader generalisation that is quite unwarranted - I have seen many who quote either Psalm 14:1 or 53:1 without stopping there or using those single quotes as best fits for some clichés to address only the atheist. Perhaps a better and more accommodating way to put it would be to qualify the statement with 'some Christians', as it cannot be said that 'Christians' around the world just stop somewhere on that verse.

I agree with this.

Hang on, mate. . . I don't think you're helping that point, for the gist of your emphasis in your summary is to criminalise the Christian and acquit the atheist  - for your assertions pointed to this very point:

[list](a) "For the text says nothing at all about atheists"

I acknowledge this omision.

and
(b) "religious folk whose works are wicked deny the existence of God far more than atheists. They are the fools"[/list]

I think the points are self-referencing and we don't need to pretend anything here.

I do not understand how you would deny the atheist was included in that verse by the assertion you made that it says "nothing at all about atheists" and then turn round to say you had included the atheist that you absolved from that same verse? Nor did you even try to make a balance between these things when your summary points the finger at religious folks as the ones who are the fools?

I get your point. Yes, my choice of words in that instance imply as you say. But the whole write up does not. But I see going further on the point will only amount to repeating all I have said about my audience and the way that scripture has been used, as well as the phrases “first and foremost” and “far more than”.

I think the emphasis in italisizing "in their heart" in your OP was what I was pointing to ~~

Like you already pointed out, words first take shape in the heart of he that speaks them. I took that for granted.

Out of here till Monday. Have great weekend, you and everyone.

Deep Sight:
MyJoe -

The biblical assertion "the fool says in his heart - there is no God" applies perfectly to the atheistic mindset.

Indeed, yes. My point is that denying God's existence in your heart is an even bigger issue with a religious baddie. How, for instance, does a clergyman who steals in the name of God expect people to believe he believes in his heart in the existence of the God described in the Bible as smiting Ananais and Saphira to death for lying to an apostle? Think Leo and the other Medici popes.

viaro:
That again is the summary of a misguided assertion. Religious folks do not try to deny the existence of God, although they may 'deny God' by their lifestyles when they go contrary to the claims of their beliefs. To deny God and to deny the existence of God are two worlds apart.

Let me explain:

[list](a) you do not need to a worldview to deny God (both religious and irreligious folks could deny God);
(b) but, you certainly must hold on to a worldview to make a statement of denying the existence of God and the supernatural - and that worldview that assertively denies God's existence is atheism.[/list]

It is on that note that you accentuated a particularly misguided ideology on your assumption.

Expounding on (a) above, let me again recommend the link I posted earlier, clearly showing that "["it is not only atheists that are directly addressed as fools in the Bible - others have been described with similar qualifiers"].
And indeed, these 'others' include religious folks to whom are committed  the tenets of their faith. A few examples: Israel was admonished to take heed to God's Word spoken to them, "lest ye deny your God" (Josh. 24:27) - this does not mean that they were in danger of denying 'God's existence', but rather that they risked turning away from Him to worshipping other gods (compare Duet. 6:12-14 and 32:18). The atheist who says "there is no God" does not turn aside to other deities nor does he acknowledge the supernatural - and it is not about atheism that Joshua was warning Israel.

Compare again the point in 2 Tim. 2:12 from the pen of the same apostle - 'If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us'. The 'denying' of God here is not about His existence or the supernatural, in as much as God denying anyone does not turn him to an atheist nor does it say that God does not believe in the existence of those who deny Him. It is rather the same message to be conveyed as that which you cited in Titus 1:16, whereby religious folks are living ungodly lives.

The express denial of the existence of God is not the claim of the religious or the theist, however unfaithful he or she might be. Rather, such a denial of His existence is the core of atheism for many atheists, who assert that 'there is no God', and that nothing exists outside of their materialistic and physicalistic worldview. To assert that 'there is no God' is the core of the belief of many atheists which they hold dearly in their hearts, unless other atheists would want to play the hypocrite of asserting something with their mouths which they believe differently from their hearts.

The distinction you make is a good point and it is hard to dispute it. I cannot dismiss it out of hand, too. However, it is not one I will attach undue importance to since the concept of God is largely metaphysical. And this is where my HIV/Aids analogy falls short. While viruses are material and can be apprehended objectively, God is not. I believe in the existence of God, and do so do you. But our reasons for believing might be different. The process of apprehending evidence for the existence of God is subjective. Subjective acceptance of God is then expressed by…, well for most, belief in the afterlife is fundamental. Now, I don’t know how familiar you are with our national politics but permit me to draw my analogy from there.

Once during a conversation my cousin remarked that he did not believe our immediate president, Olusegun Obasanjo, believes in the afterlife. I considered the matter and slowly added that I did not think Obasanjo, Ibrahim Babangida, Lamidi Adedibu, Ayo Fayose or Charles Taylor believed in any afterlife. Now belief in the afterlife is so central to belief in the existence God that even many of the champions of deistic thought like John Toland and Thomas Paine did not reject it. All the guys mentioned above are religious. If those who believe in the existence of God display such manifest wickedness that people take a look and say, he doesn’t believe in afterlife, can we still find a distinction between them the atheist with reference to denying the existence of God? Yes. But it is infinitesimally small. It is immaterial.

That was a good point you made to Tudor in that thread, but I am here concerned with the use of Psalm 14:1 to label people.

Hi viaro -

My understanding of the gist of your reaction is that the intention of the psalmist could not have excluded atheists who mouth disbelief in the existence of God. I have no objection to this and I did not set out to make the point that those who vocalise their unbelief in God are not referred to in that verse.  [b]The point I set out to make is that, first and foremos[/i]t, the scripture text refers to believers who disown God by their works. [/b]That is probably where we disagree.

To be sure, I consider it foolish for a man with such a limited viewpoint as we have, to contemplate all the wonders around us and reach a definitive position that there is no God. Agnosticism, particularly where used as a strategy to ask further questions, I can understand, but atheism, damn presumptuous.

viaro:
While I might acknowledge the gist of your post, I think the whole piece misses its fundamental bearing. Its weakness is highlighted especially in your analogy of AIDS - that is a serious joke and does nothing to bring out the point you were trying to put forth.

I recognise that most analogies suffer severe inferential limitations and did not expect this to work for everyone. As I believe you can see, the whole idea was to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing.

However, let me narrow my comments to this part of your piece:

Nope, that is not where 'Christians' are wont to stop when quoting that verse. Let me refer you to an example in my own experience where I expounded on the tendency for people to act foolishly without narrowing it to merely those with atheistic inclinations: please see this example in my discourse with Tudor in my early days on Nairaland ~ ["However, it is not only atheists that are directly addressed as fools in the Bible - others have been described with similar qualifiers"]. It may help to not be so broad in your generalisations.

When quoting Psalm 14:1 in dialogue, Christians are wont to stop at the first sentence, since they believe it conveys the point they are trying to get across - that the Bible calls you a fool if you say there is no God. I will get to the point you made to Tudor in that thread presently.

Your idea that such a quote may refer not to the loquacious atheist is quite amusing, misleading and mischievous at best. An atheist, as far as I know, does not only use his/her mouth to deny the very existence of God, but that is what he/she believes in his/her heart. The only way to pretend otherwise is to make the atheist a hypocrite who says something with his mouth differently from what he believes in his/her heart. At the core of many peoples' atheism is the heart belief that there is no God.

What you wrote is not an accurate understanding of this:

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” This is where Christians are wont to stop when quoting the verse. “It’s the Bible that says you are a fool, not me.” But even this portion, taken alone, refers [color=#000099]first and foremos[/color]t, not to the loquacious atheist who declares with his mouth that there is no God, but to anyone who says it [i]in their heart. That is, those religious folk who mouth God from cockcrow to dusk but live mostly for earthbound lucre. (See Titus 1:16).

I think the inclusive qualifier, “first and foremost”, adequately conveys my position that both the atheist and the Christian are covered in that portion of the Bible. It shows my point of emphasis without being exclusive. That is again highlighted in the last paragraph with the expression ". . . far more than atheists." This is like the ancient saying that when you point a finger at someone, three are simultaneously pointed at you. This in no way vacates the fact that you are still pointing at the other person. And that applies to the whole write up. That the emphasis was placed on the three fingers was naturally because I was primarily addressing Christians, as atheists have had that scripture thrown in their faces long enough by Christians who apply it not to themselves, wrongly in my view.

At the basics, it is the question of the existence of God and the supernatural that forms the core of theism - and for someone to assert that 'there is no God' is basically foolish, whether they do so by merely mouthing it off or actually believeing it with their hearts. I do not find how you could intelligently defend the idea that someone would go out of his way to deny the existence of God with their mouth without believing that denial with their hearts.

Nowhere did I do this. I did not even imply it. If you show me my error, I will apologise.

Hello, viaro. Thanks for your reply. Will reply you once back to my desk.

^^^ I thought tpia was female!  Could I be . . .

I'm good, mazaje. How's there?

Of course, Mallam Tandja Momodou had his coming to him.

ilosiwaju: The christian point of view on pre-marital se.x is fundamentally flawed on this one. Psalm 51, david asks for forgiveness for being conceived in a sinful way. That's by the way sha, the rather obtuse paul is actually an apostle who is a classic example of what women right activists dont need in this present day. In one of his emails to somewheretians, he clearly stated that marriage causes men not to serve GOD well enough that blessed is the man who gives his daughter's hand in marriage but more blessed is the one who does not.  you wont hear those scriptures during weddings am sure! 
He goes further on his perversive trip by implying / recommending that men should only get married if they cant hold on their sexu.al urge. In other words, women are property(which is not new in the jewish world) and are to be taken to the altar only because of agro .

Subject's posts are in bad taste and I am surprised it took him this long to attract a ban. I think he was warned by, was it Jagunlabi, when he started on this course. But I agree with mazaje that Nezan, like some other religious folk around here, is least qualified to bring this charge.

The fool hath said in his heart,
    There is no God.
They are corrupt, they have done abominable works,
    There is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14:1, KJV

In Nigerian legal circles, there is a cliché that goes, “it is an act of violence to read into a piece of legislation what it does not say.”

I bear that in mind, not only when reading legislations, but when reading sacred texts, such as the Bible. Now let us examine the scripture text cited above. For I have noted with considerable dismay the tendency of many Bible exponents to use it to put a white tag on atheists with the word FOOL spent out on it in shimmering black and capitals. That position is misguided. For the text says nothing at all about atheists, and that is so obvious we don’t need make references to Strong’s Concordance or something of the sort to see it.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” This is where Christians are wont to stop when quoting the verse. “It’s the Bible that says you are a fool, not me.” But even this portion, taken alone, refers first and foremost, not to the loquacious atheist who declares with his mouth that there is no God, but to anyone who says it in their heart. That is, those religious folk who mouth God from cockcrow to dusk but live mostly for earthbound lucre. (See Titus 1:16).

Let’s illustrate this with a story from Africa’s stormy politics.

The immediate past president of South Africa, the dour and cerebral Thabo Mbeki, is universally famous for questioning the causal link between HIV and Aids. Unfortunately, his HIV atheism rubbed off on the officialdom, bringing about lethargy in policy formulation towards an apocalypse that demanded nothing short of a WW II German Fallschirmjäger military-type response.

Enter the ebullient Jacob Zuma. With smiles oozing from the four compass points of his mouth, he met with presidents, scientists, philanthropists such as Bill Gates, and HIV evangelists of various colouring. HIV causes Aids, he declared. His government was going to tackle it. Some heaved a sigh of relief. But not everyone. Anyone who knew Zuma well knew here was the greatest danger to the Aids fight South Africa has ever seen! Here is a man who told the world that he knowingly slept with a HIV-positive woman and promptly proceeded to take a shower to halt the viruses possibly swimming up his penile orifice in their tracks! Now consider the potential effect of those words on the mindset of young South African men; add to that the fact that Zuma has remained the connoisseur of nubile females with absolutely no time for condoms and have sufficient neonatal bundles of evidence to leave Tuface looking a virgin. Now you will begin to see who poses the gravest threat to the HIV/Aids fight between the atheistic Mbeki and Zuma, born again and spirit-filled in speech, but saying in his heart that there is no Aids.

In the same vein, [b]religious folk whose works are wicked deny the existence of God far more than atheists. They are the fools. [/b]That fact is reinforced in the second part of the Bible verse: “They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”

@op
Where is Sam Milla? This thread can use a scenario.

disciplex:
Finally,i think atheists like the hitlers and stalins of our day should be kept in check as free thinking without the concept of God would lead to chaos just as history has thought us.

Hitler wasn't an atheist. First came across this idea on NL and wonder where it comes from!

You will have to take charge there. Have fun. I am not watching.

Hey Goog. Howdy?

Yes. There is one in Benin City, somewhere at Sapele Road in GRA.

I support OP. We should take up our swords and kill all the atheists. And maybe all other contrarians like mystics, traditionalists, stargazers, Satanists, and Moslems. The world will become just perfect!

There is nothing strange at all about this. It is not something most people can do, but there are certain people who have such capabilities. It is not usually a sign of brilliance but of something else. To understand the phenomenon, you may google "autistic savant", as that is the most likely explanation.

@stillgrds
Have not come online since Friday, my apologies.

You did not answer my simple questions. Why? I see they were not what you expected - it appears you Witnesses always think you have it all so wrapped up. But you should have provided answers as you see fit.  I am open minded to the truth and should recognise it if it hits me. I do not engage in circular arguments and will discuss in intellectual honesty since I do not have a holy writ to defend but is merely inquiring into those of others.

I prefer to interact with you here so others can read and discover what your religion offers and does not - the truth or otherwise. If you want some intellectual honesty and have no specific objections to interacting here, I will opt for it.

Let me answer some of your questions.

stillgrds: Hello MyJoe,
is it likely your are a free-thinker? Its interesting because I used to be one. To answer your questions, It would have been nice to be face to face with you.(May be impossible for now). However, may I know the following if you care to give me the answers;

1. Do you believe a creator exists?

Yes

stillgrds: 2. Manufacturer make instruction manuals for their products. if you believe in a creator, do you thinks he has provided a means for us to guide of steps in life? If he has, what do you think that means is?

Our conscience, first and foremost. The Bible agrees.

stillgrds: 3. I used to be a free thinker because I wanted to shield myself from a sense of responsibility to God. Do you feel that way too?

This argument is shallow, annoying and of no use. I probably take my responsibilities to God and neighbours more seriously than you do. I suggest you google up "country facts" about the atheistic countries of the world and compare their crime and corruption indexes to your Bible chewing, spirit filled societies. After reading come back and tell me if you still think "freethinkers" are the ones running from responsibility or religious people are the ones more likely to act irresponsible since they expect God to clear up their mess after them and have no qualms living as it pleases since they do not see God standing over their shoulders, anyway.

stillgrds: 4. Are you of science background or social/art background?

We may have to deal with question via email. You have a right not to answer the questions if you feel so.

My email -  c.stillgrounds@gmail.com

It is my findings that the entire body of JW doctrine is based, almost entirely, on the tradition of men.  If you would like this discussion to proceed, I will open a new thread where we can discuss the issues that have been raised:
1.  The issue of human tradition in Christianity
2.  JW as the "true religion"
3.  Bible interpretation, the The New World Translation and the JW
and (if you are comfortable with it)
4. An analysis of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith.

And maybe the Bible - the idea that it is complete and without errors.

PastorAIO: Davidylan, which one na?  Abeg I respect the guts it takes to make this repentance.  It is a very hard thing to do to confess when you've gone a long way down with a lie.  The more you wriggle the deeper you sink. 

I had a similar situation recently.  I got stopped by the police for some bye-law offence.  I don't know what came over me but I started to formulate my story. 
'What's your name?'
'Alistair Macauley'
. . . .
. . ,
and so on and so forth.  I mixed it up with a fair bit of truth, like my residential address so when they checked they saw that it was a valid address.
A month later Alistair Macauley got a letter from the police asking him to come and receive a warning and that would be the end of the matter.  But alistair had to bring ID so I didn't go.

2 weeks later 3 police men turned up on my doorstep. "Emi nikan!", I thought. 3 whole police men.  They were looking for Alistair Macauley.  I said I don't know o, but my name is Pastor AIO.  They asked to come in and stupidly I let them in, they didn't have a warrant so I could have just told them to get lost.  They asked for my ID, I showed them.  Ah ha, one of them noticed that my date of birth was the same as Alistair Macauley's. 
I was just denying sha, and I said I knew someone like that that used to come around with my cousin and sometimes he would stay the night, but I didn't think he was devious enough to try to use my identity like this.  I acted aghast and disappointed. 
The police man almost started begging me, saying that this is just a minor offence and there is no need to drag it like that so if I know the guy I should tell them where he is.  The way the policeman kept repeating 'minor offence' and 'nothing to worry about' actually got me worried.  Something in the back of my mind said that if these guys catch me out now I'll be in serious trouble o because now it is not just a matter of parking in the wrong place but a matter of pride for them.  I'm trying to pull a fast one on them.  The more I wriggled, the deeper I sank into the lie but I just wanted to admit it yet I couldn't.
In the end the policemen left and I was in tatters.

Ol boy, once you start lying it's hard to reverse o!  I really respect you for that Mavenbox. 

Though I still suspect that there is some connection between you and Pilgrim if not that you are the same person.

David's post, which the above is written in reply to, had motive at its crux. From that viewpoint, I fail to detect a sliver of parallel between it and OP.

This is useful and I commend it to everyone and hope poster takes it to heart.

PastorAIO: Mavenbox, everybody is an attention seeker.  We all do it, I believe it is a basic urge of the human psyche.  Some of us have simply learnt to do it more subtly than others but we all love to be recognised.  One of the worse things you could do to someone psychologically is to send them to coventry, that is to ignore them completely.  Poor people and beggars experience this form of torture whereby people treat them like they are not there. 

Please don't feel like you're doing something bad that only you does and no one else.  Perhaps you need to be a bit more subtle, and less aggressive with it.  A lot of human interaction is a give and take of "I'll listen to you if you'll listen to me".  But no one likes the company of someone who wants to talk all the time and always be the cleverest, loudest person in the pack who is always right.

And even if you are quite often right, you have to be extra careful about how you put it across.  It is not worth winning an argument and losing a friend.  Man is a political animal, learn to be politick.  Allow people to discover your point as if they've discovered it for themselves rather than been told it by you.  Let them even instruct you with the lesson that you've been trying to get across to them from the very start.

The only thing that I think you've done wrong is that you've lacked diplomacy and subtlety.

@JeSoul

Glaaaaaaaaaad to have you back!

Pastor AIO:
And who will be doing the violating and who will be violated
Who will be doing the revolting and who will be revolted against
and who will do the consuming and who will be consumed.

You have to give it up for largerwhenindoubt whose clear thinking is nonpareil compared to those of the intellectuals who are intellecting against the time tested method of revolting.

During the French Revolution, King Louis was beheaded, then his beautiful wife, the infamous Marie-Antionette, got the same treatment.
Then other noblemen.
Then suddenly countless ordinary people were being denounced as being anti-republican and sent to the "tribunal" which sent to the guillotine just about anyone brought before it.
Then the leaders of the revolution (like largerwhenindoubt), including the judges of the tribunal themselves wound up under the guillotine.

Joagbaje:
My sister, God is not author of evil .I know quite well the erronous doctrine you have believed ,but its not consistent with Gods nature. I have greater light than Isaiah, God is love.

It's been around for a while - I think it was IBB who introduced it around here to compensate a friend left out of the initial ministry sharing. He performs duties assigned by the President.

stillgrds:
Hello Myjoe,
I don't think, rather I know the bible contains everything we need to do what God requires of us.

So how do you handle experiences, either by you or people close to you, that do not fit into what the Bible contains?

stillgrds: Lets take your example - Preaching from house to house.

Acts 5: 41 and 42

41  These, therefore, went their way from before the San´he·drin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy to be dishonored in behalf of his name. 42  And every day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus.

How do you compare the above to this (Luke 10:5-7, NIV):
5"When you enter a house, first say, 'Peace to this house.' 6If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. 7Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

stillgrds: You asked me to site examples of reasoning of church leaders. Examples are the acceptance of christmas as a christian celebration, The pope saying that the theory of evolution is compatible with the bible, The teaching of Trinity, speaking in tongues of languages that cannot be translated by any etc.

The above beliefs cannot be defended with the bible because they have been initiated by men and the traditions of men.

So Christmas and others are traditions of men. Fine. But do you know how the Bible came to you? Are you aware that it is the same people that gave you the Bible (that is, picked and chose what appears in it), that also gave you Christmas? Is is really possible to divorce "men" and "traditions" from anything being handled by men? Who do you think runs your religion, if not men?
Let me show you some examples. This is the old masthead of Awake, one of your official journals:

Why Awake! is Published.
Awake! is for the enlightenment of the entire family. It shows how to cope with today's problems. It reports the news, tells about people in many lands, examines religion and science. But it does more. It probes beneath the surface and points to the real meaning behind current events, yet always stays politically neutral and does not exalt one race above another. Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away.

This is the new one:
Why Awake! is Published.
Awake! is for the enlightenment of the entire family. It shows how to cope with today's problems. It reports the news, tells about people in many lands, examines religion and science. But it does more. It probes beneath the surface and points to the real meaning behind current events, yet always stays politically neutral and does not exalt one race above another. Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful new world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things.

If the generation of 1914 is dying out with no "peaceful new world" in sight and a group of men then sit down to decide that the creator's promise had changed, does that not sound like a "tradition of men"? How is writing something on a whim and claiming it is God's promise less serious than rechristening a pagan holiday in order to win converts to the Christian course?

I don't know whether evolution is compatible with the Bible or not and I am no expert on the subject and cannot make a case for Darwinian evolution, but the Pope may have a point. Or what is your explanation of fosillised remains of human creatures, such as homo erectus and others, who have longer arms and smaller brains than us the homo sapiens?

stillgrds: We should trust the interpretations that the bible's harmony helps us to reach. for example, ask yourself, why did Jesus speak of persons inheriting the earth in Mathew 5:5 when it is said by most Christians that heaven is the place for good people? Concluding that Jesus contradicted himself here will be wrong. Checking other scripture can clear the air.

What about the scriptures that state clearly that where Christ is his followers will be? Can anyone change this invitation?

stillgrds: Well, Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim to be the source of the interpretations of the Bible. They believe the Bible speaks for itself. Intellectual honesty in needed to see what God wants us to know from the Bible. The absolute truthfulness of the Bible should not come in-between our accepting the Bible as Gods word for man. Human imperfection may have played in but not to the extent that the truth cannot be identified and applied in our worship. May I ask, why do you think we cannot rely on the Bible?

I am not saying we can or cannot rely on the Bible, but just trying to see why we should. What I observe is that the Bible (1) was written by men like other books (2) it has many inconsistencies (3) many of its stories are not unique and appear to have been drawn from epic poems that existed thousands of years ago (4) there are many verifiable experiences that go contrary to the Bible.[quote][/quote]