Roycemadeit's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Roycemadeit's Profile › Roycemadeit's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 38 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 8:05pm On Oct 04

lawani:
Let them go into a bear forest without weapons and see if they won't be lunch for bears. Bears don't run from humans. They see them as lunch. In Northern Europe it is illegal to go into the forest without arms because of bears. Meanwhile some human beings that we live with in our cities are more dangerous than wild animals. They are more dangerous than any bear. They look upon you as lunch

.
.
Exactly. And that's the point I've been making. Having the right mentality and obeying moral rules is one thing; dealing with someone or something that doesn't share that mentality is another. That's why physical protection can still be necessary even in a society where people understand right and wrong.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 8:00pm On Oct 04

MaxInDHouse:
We don't need any of them our God said we will see reasons why He must destroy all those who are not members of our faith because if everyone is our member this earth will become a paradise!

So you have judged yourself as you said it's not members of our faith that's causing the problems leading you people to believe in the use of weapons! Revelation 6:3-4🙂

.
.
But Max, you've just moved the argument from how society actually works today to what you believe your God will supposedly do in the future.

You say you don't need courts, police or security because God will eventually destroy everyone who isn't a member of your faith and then the earth will become paradise.

But until that supposed future judgment happens, your members still live in the same society as everyone else. They still depend on laws, courts, police, hospitals, roads and other institutions maintained by people who aren't Jehovah's Witnesses.

And Revelation 6:3-4 doesn't say, “people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses will cause the world to use weapons.” It describes a rider taking peace from the earth so that people kill one another. The connection you're making between that passage and modern governments using weapons is your interpretation, not what the passage says.

More importantly, you're assuming the conclusion: “If everyone became Jehovah's Witnesses, there would be no need for weapons.” But that is precisely what you're trying to prove.

You can't use the peaceful world you expect after everyone has been manipulated to accept your belief as evidence that your belief is true.

The question is about the world we actually live in now. And in that world, your members, like everyone else, can be victims of people who don't share their beliefs. That is why the wider society still has laws and security institutions.

The existence of a future paradise doesn't demonstrate that weapons are unnecessary today, and Revelation 6:3-4 doesn't establish that Jehovah's Witnesses are the organization God chose.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 3:53am On Oct 04

MaxInDHouse:
So you think it's your police or military that's protecting you shey?
Ọmọ you guys have a long way to go.
Now i know for sure that people really need the wisdom Jesus impacted in us.
Some individuals within a society were trained and given weapons to carry about and these individuals are also in need/want of so many things that riches can buy yet they mentally subject themselves to average lifestyle instead of forcefully using the weapons in their hands to collect whatever they want or need just as others whom you call "CRIMINALS" are doing and you believe it's because they're carrying weapons that's why you are protected shey?
What if the same people holding weapons decide to rob you who will now protect you from being robbed?
Ọmọ it's not the weapons in the hands of those wearing uniforms that's serving as protection rather the mentality that there should be right and wrong which doesn't even have anything to do with physical weapons at all.
So if you now see people who mentally subject themselves to rules having to do with right and wrong without the use of physical weapons they are the ones proving that they are real humans not those deceiving themselves claiming they are being protected by uniformed men and women that can decide to attack or even rob you using the same weapons given to them!🙂

.
.

You're creating a false choice between “weapons” and “mentality.”

Of course people need laws, values and a sense of right and wrong. But that doesn't make physical protection irrelevant.

A police officer can believe stealing is wrong and still need a weapon to stop an armed robber. A soldier can believe murder is wrong and still carry a weapon to defend people from someone who intends to kill them.

And if your argument is that criminals would stop being criminals if everyone simply had the right mentality, then you haven't explained why your organization needs courts, police protection, security arrangements or any other institution that deals with people who don't share that mentality.

The existence of moral restraint does not eliminate the need for physical protection.

That's why saying “we don't carry weapons” doesn't prove that weapons are unnecessary. It only proves that you personally choose not to carry them.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 9:52pm On Oct 03

MaxInDHouse:
@Roycemadeit
In the below picture you see many people carrying weapons while just two men are there in their midst controlling all the resources in their countries.
Do you think it's the weapons that's doing the work or the mentality that there must be right and wrong?
Do you think those carrying the weapons have all the things they want/need so that they fully agree to stand protecting those two old men?🤔

But this picture actually proves my point, not yours.

You're showing armed personnel protecting political leaders and asking whether the weapons or the mentality are doing the work.

The answer is: both can matter. The soldiers' discipline and obedience are the mentality, while their weapons provide a physical means of protection and enforcement. Remove either one and you change the security arrangement.

And if one of those armed personnel decided to attack the very people they're protecting, the existence of a “right and wrong” mentality would not magically stop them. You would still need another security mechanism to protect against that threat.

That's precisely why societies have layers of security, laws, institutions and armed enforcement.

Your argument keeps treating moral agreement and physical force as if one makes the other unnecessary. They don't.

And none of this answers the original question: how does Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to personally carry weapons prove that God uniquely established your organization?

Literature › Re: Conversations I Never Finished by Roycemadeit(op): 7:27am On Oct 01

Ifeoluwa broke the silence.

"But this brings us back to the problem with your position."

"Which is?"

"You believe humans can build morality through law, philosophy, institutions and ideology."

"I believe humans can make moral progress through them."

"That's not the same thing."

"No. It isn't."

"Humans are selfish. They're greedy. They want power. When opportunity comes, people take advantage of other people."

"Sometimes."

"Not sometimes. Look around."

Royce laughed.

"I'm looking."

"Imagine you have spent ten years working toward something. Suddenly the opportunity comes, and taking it means somebody else loses their chance. Nobody will punish you. You need the opportunity. Your family needs it. What stops you?"

"Depends on the circumstances."

"Exactly. Your morality is affected by your interests."

"Of course human beings have interests."

"That's why ideology isn't enough."

"I agree."

Ifeoluwa looked surprised.

"You agree?"

"Absolutely. Ideology alone won't make people good."

"Then what will?"

"Nothing will make everyone good."

"Then what's your solution?"

"Build systems that reduce the damage bad people can do."

"Government?"

"Government. Courts. Education. Laws. Institutions. Accountability."

"And when those systems become corrupt?"

"We change them."

"And when the people changing them become corrupt?"

"We change them too."

"That's an endless process."

"Yes."

"And you believe that works?"

"I believe it can work better than doing nothing."

Ifeoluwa shook his head.

"But you are still trying to create morality without God."

"No. I'm trying to create a society where human beings can live with one another despite not being morally perfect."

"That's different."

"Exactly."

Royce paused.

"Your own example of Israel proves something important to me. Israel supposedly had God's laws, prophets, covenant and divine guidance. Yet they repeatedly became violent, corrupt and unjust."

"They disobeyed."

"Exactly. So divine instruction didn't automatically create a moral society."

"That's why humans need discipline."

"And that's why societies need institutions."

Ifeoluwa smiled.

"You're basically saying humanity needs to keep debugging itself."

"Yes."

"That's very engineer-like."

"It beats pretending the code is perfect."

They laughed.

Then Ifeoluwa became serious.

"But what if humanity never succeeds?"

"Then we keep improving what we can."

"And if there is an eternal life?"

"Then I will deal with that question when there's evidence for it."

"You don't believe in heaven?"

"I don't have evidence that convinces me."

"And if you're wrong?"

"Then I'm wrong."

"You're not afraid?"

"Of course I'm not afraid, Fear isn't evidence."

Ifeoluwa nodded.

"You really believe this is the only world we know."

Royce looked around the office.

"This is the one we know."

He closed his laptop.

"And because this is the one we know, I think we have a responsibility to make it less terrible."

Ifeoluwa stood.

"I still believe humanity needs God."

"And I know humans have no excuse to stop working simply because they believe God will eventually fix everything."

They walked toward the exit.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 7:19am On Oct 01

MaxInDHouse:
Perhaps i need to school you on what doctrinal unity truly means!

It simply means there will be peace among them but today all these religions have weapon carriers among them which means they don't agree that's why they resort to violence using weapons to settle their disparities. Matthew 26:52🥱

Not carrying weapons yourself doesn't mean you live without protection from people who carry weapons. If a Jehovah's Witness in northern Nigeria is protected by the police, military, private security, or other armed personnel, then the claim that peaceful society exists simply because your organization has eliminated the need for weapons becomes...

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 8:17pm On Sep 29

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus sent his disciples to preach and teach globally! Matthew 28:19-20

Jesus said his disciples will have the same line of thought regarding doctrine! John 17:22; 1Corinthans 1:10

Jesus said his disciples won't be a part of world political struggles. John 17:14-16

Jesus said his disciples will be as wise as serpent and harmless as dove! Matthew 10:16 compare to Matthew 26:52

If all these points doesn't proves that God is behind a group then what exactly do you expect to see as evidence that an organized people are disciples of Jesus the man who taught all these things in the Bible?

For your information when Jesus said his disciples will serve as his witnesses globally {Act 1:8} it doesn't mean they will bear the group name CHRISTIANS rather he meant they will represent the core values of his teachings everywhere they are found.

Your blind arguments just proves what i said earlier:

You are now fighting tough to overturn what you once said that i silenced you with facts.

So my friend i understood you very very well!🙂

- - -
- -
-
But Max, none of those characteristics is unique to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Global preaching? Christadelphians, Mormons, Baptists, Catholics and many other Christian groups do it.

Doctrinal unity? Many religious groups have their own unified doctrines.

Political neutrality and refusal to participate in war? Christadelphians, Quakers, Mennonites and other Christian peace churches have practiced these.

You keep showing me that Jehovah's Witnesses fit your interpretation of the verses. I'm asking you to show me where the Bible says those verses specifically identify Jehovah's Witnesses.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 7:38am On Sep 29

MaxInDHouse:
There you go again deceiving yourself!🥱

If people who knows themselves in one community agreed how does that makes them peaceful?

It simply means they have a ruler who understands his people but when a group goes round the world to achieve that among people who are of different languages, culture, background, race and social status then it's no longer about a human ruler but God at work! Galatians 5:22-23

So stop deceiving yourself!🙂

.
.
Christianity has been a global missionary religion for centuries. Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Mormons and numerous other Christian movements have sent missionaries across countries and continents preaching what they believe is God's truth. And other religions have also developed global missionary movements.

Your argument is not simply that Jehovah's Witnesses preach globally. Your argument is that the particular combination of preaching, doctrinal unity, political neutrality and refusal to participate in war proves that God is behind your organization.

But that is precisely what you can't demonstrate.

A group being worldwide does not prove divine appointment. A group being peaceful does not prove divine appointment. A group having members from different races and cultures does not prove divine appointment. And a group agreeing on doctrine does not prove divine appointment.

Those things establish characteristics of the group. They do not establish who God chose.

Otherwise, any religious organization could identify characteristics that distinguish itself from others, find Bible passages that resemble those characteristics, and then declare, “Therefore the prophecy is about us.”

That's the very assumption I questioned.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 4:05pm On Sep 26

MaxInDHouse:
This is where you got things wrong again!

Of course when i present evidence but you want to disprove it then it means you need to present something that can stand at least beside what i presented nah!🙂

You can't say i'm wrong after giving you all reasonable points showing that this organization have gone round the world to gather people from all the nations and turned them to peace lovers something the world really need in our time as world leaders are building destructive devices worth billions of dollars whereas their citizens are dying of hunger.

So before you can sincerely say i'm wrong surely you have to present another group that has achieved something closer to that globally nah!🙂

.
Several different religious traditions have teachings against violence and have produced communities committed to peace. The existence of peaceful Jehovah's Witnesses is therefore evidence of what Jehovah's Witnesses practice, not automatically evidence of divine appointment.

You're asking me to prove your conclusion wrong by finding a competing group, when what you actually need to prove is the positive claim that your organization is the specific group identified by the prophecy.

Where does Isaiah 2:2-4 identify Jehovah's Witnesses, specifically? Not where your organization believes it applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. Where does the text itself make that identification?

Literature › Re: Conversations I Never Finished by Roycemadeit(op): 8:52am On Sep 26

The office was nearly empty when Royce returned to the subject.

"Let me ask you something without theology for a moment."

Ifeoluwa looked at him.

"Go ahead."

"Imagine you're a child and someone kills your parents and your siblings. Then the people who did it tell you they were carrying out God's judgment."

Ifeoluwa didn't answer immediately.

"What would you call those people?" Royce asked.

"From the child's perspective, probably killers."

"Exactly."

"But that doesn't mean they weren't carrying out God's judgment."

"That's the part I don't understand."

"What don't you understand?"

"You're asking me to accept that something can look like murder from the victim's perspective but be justice from God's perspective."

"Because God's knowledge is higher than ours."

"But the victim still suffered."

"Yes."

"Then why should the victim's suffering suddenly become less important because we believe God authorized it?"

"It doesn't become less important."

"But earlier you said the victim's feelings don't determine whether God's judgment is just."

"That's different."

"How?"

"The victim may hate what happened, but God's judgment can still be right."

Royce nodded.

"I hope God told the victim, that it his judgement and not the murderers telling the victim? I cannot suspend moral judgment simply because someone claims divine authority."

Ifeoluwa leaned forward.

"What about people who sacrificed children to Baal?"

"They were wrong, according to God."

"God condemned them."

"Yes."

"So what is your problem?"

"My problem is the principle."

"What principle?"

"Christianity condemns child sacrifice when another religion does it, but Christianity also describes Jesus' death as a sacrifice ordained by God."

"Jesus willingly gave himself."

"Yes. That's the Christian explanation."

"And that matters."

"Certainly. Consent matters. But notice what that means. We are still using moral concepts like consent, harm, intention and responsibility to explain why one sacrifice is different from another."

Ifeoluwa was quiet.

Royce continued.

"And that's why I don't accept the argument that morality becomes impossible without God. Human beings can reason morally even when they disagree about God."

"But reason can be wrong."

"Of course."

"So can religious interpretation."

Ifeoluwa looked at him.

"You're saying Christianity doesn't remove human moral uncertainty."

"Exactly."

"But it gives us a standard."

"It gives Christians a standard they believe comes from God. That's different."

Ifeoluwa nodded slowly.

"Then perhaps the real disagreement is about authority."

"Yes."

"Who gets the final word."

"Exactly."

"And you don't believe God gets it."

"I don't believe I've been given sufficient evidence that God has spoken through Christianity."

Ifeoluwa leaned back.

"That's a very different argument from saying Christianity is simply evil."

"I never said Christianity is evil."

"What are you saying?"

"I'm saying I don't accept the moral authority of a God whose actions I have to reinterpret before I can call them good."

The room became quiet.

To be continued.

Literature › Re: Conversations I Never Finished by Roycemadeit(op): 7:34am On Sep 26

A Conversation Between Ifeoluwa and Royce About God, Morality and the World We Live In... Pt 2

The following evening, they found themselves having the same conversation again.

Ifeoluwa had barely sat down when Royce said, "You said yesterday that God loves humanity."

"Yes."

"Then let's start there."

Ifeoluwa sighed.

"Here we go."

"You're the one who brought up God's love."

"And God's discipline."

"Exactly."

"Christianity isn't a promise that life will be comfortable. The Bible repeatedly shows people suffering, being corrected and being tested. Hebrews says discipline can be painful but produces righteousness."

"But why does God need to use suffering as discipline?"

"Because humans learn through experience."

"Do they?"

"Of course."

"Then what about people who suffer for things they didn't do?"

Ifeoluwa paused.

"Not every suffering is punishment."

"Good. Then we're already making a distinction."

"Yes."

"Because that's important. A child who loses his parents in a war isn't necessarily being disciplined by God."

"No."

"Then when you say God permits suffering because he's teaching humanity something, how do you explain the child?"

Ifeoluwa looked at him.

"The Bible doesn't say we will understand every reason God permits something."

"That's the answer I keep hearing."

"Because it is true."

"But there's another problem."

"What?"

"You say the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are the same."

"They are."

"Then explain the difference between the God who tells people to love their enemies and the God who commands the destruction of entire populations."

"Those were judgments."

"That's exactly what I'm asking about."

Ifeoluwa frowned.

"God has the right to judge."

"Why?"

"Because he is the creator."

"So because he created life, he has the moral right to take it?"

"Yes."

"Then God's authority becomes the basis of morality."

"God is the standard of morality."

"But that creates a problem. If God commands something, you call it righteous because God commanded it. If a human being does exactly the same thing without God's approval, you call it evil."

"Because God knows what humans don't."

"That's a belief, not an independent moral argument."

Ifeoluwa shook his head.

"You cannot judge God by human standards."

"Then what standard do you use to determine that God is good?"

"God's own standard."

Royce stared at him.

"Then we're going in circles."

"Not necessarily."

"How?"

"Because God isn't morally accountable to humans."

Royce nodded slowly.

"That is exactly what troubles me."

"Why?"

"Because once you say that, almost anything becomes defensible if someone can claim God ordered it."

Ifeoluwa leaned forward.

"That's why humans must correctly understand God's Word."

Royce smiled.

"And there we are again."

"Where?"

"Humans."

_{Pt. 3. On the way}

Literature › Re: Conversations I Never Finished by Roycemadeit(op): 7:30am On Sep 26

Omnitetris64:
Good thread, and the exchange has landed on something a lot older than either side of it.

Royce's objection - that being shown what the book says is not the same as being shown that God said it - is the Problem of the Criterion. Sextus Empiricus set it out in the second century (Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Book II): to judge whether a claim is true you need a criterion, but to know that criterion is reliable you need a prior criterion, and so on back. The Pyrrhonists called it the wheel.

What makes it worth naming is that it cuts at everybody, not only the believer. Chisholm's 1973 Aquinas Lecture on the problem sets out the only three moves available: start from a method and see which facts survive it, start from particular things you take yourself to know and work out the method from them, or accept that you cannot start at all. Nobody gets a neutral vantage point. Ifeoluwa is starting from particulars he trusts; Royce is starting from a method he trusts. Neither move is irrational, and neither can be justified without already using itself.

That is usually why these conversations stall exactly where yours did - for structural reasons, not because one person is being stubborn.

Fair point. I think that's actually where the conversation gets more interesting for me. Royce might've not claimed to have some completely neutral starting point; He is questioning whether the Christian claim can establish its own authority simply by appealing to the authority of the Bible itself. If we're all starting from certain assumptions, then perhaps the question is why we accept those assumptions and what reasons we have for trusting them.

I'm posting the continuation grin

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 8:55pm On Sep 25

MaxInDHouse:
I love this!🙂
So can you now tell me what is the name of your own God and where you do worship?
The Beroeans believe in God and the scriptures that is why they focused on the fulfillment of what the scriptures says o!😁

And regarding Paul's letter to Thessalonians what form of worship is good to you o?😁

When you question the beliefs of someone or some people it simply means you have what is of greater value and benefits so can you present a better group than Jehovah's Witnesses?😁

God says He will allow false religionists bear any name Satan used to mock His faithful people but He (God) will later call His own worshipers by another group name.
The name "CHRISTIANS" has been defamed by false religions claiming they believe in God but going about fighting and killings people during the dark ages something Jesus or his disciples never did. Is that not what most atheists like you often refer to when talking about Christians Crusaders?
So it's after Jehovah's Witnesses have gotten certain facts about God and Jesus that separated us from all other religions God gave us that group name JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES! Isaiah 65:15
You may choose to argue but all the religionist claiming Christians know that we are no part of them!😁

Now it's clear that you are just arguing blindly because initially what you asked is where God's word refers to scriptures as sword!😁

.
You asked me, “What is the name of your own God and where do you worship?”

That's a separate question. My personal beliefs do not establish or disprove your claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are God's uniquely chosen organization. You made that claim, the evidence for it has to come from the evidence you present.

You then ask whether I can present a group better than Jehovah's Witnesses. Again, that's changing the question. I don't have to produce a “better group” before I can examine your claim that yours is the one true organization. If you say your organization is uniquely identified by Scripture, the question is whether Scripture actually makes that identification.
You say Isaiah 65:15 gives your organization its name. But the verse says God's servants will be called by “another name.” It does not say “Jehovah's Witnesses,” You are supplying that connection through your interpretation. That's precisely what I'm asking you to demonstrate.

The same thing happens with Luke 22:36. You say Jesus' “sword” means Scripture because Ephesians 6:17 calls God's word “the sword of the Spirit.” But Ephesians 6:17 does not say that this is what Jesus meant in Luke 22:36. You are connecting two passages and then presenting your connection as though Luke itself explains it. That's interpretation, not an explicit statement from Luke.

And when I ask where Isaiah 2:2-4 identifies Jehovah's Witnesses, you give me another explanation of why you believe it refers to Jehovah's Witnesses. Again, that's the very connection I'm asking you to prove.
This is why Acts 17:11 is relevant. The Bereans examined the Scriptures to determine whether what they were being taught was actually so. And 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to “test everything.” I'm doing exactly that with your claims.

I'm not saying you don't have Bible verses. You clearly do. I'm asking whether those verses actually establish the conclusions you're drawing from them.
A verse saying “another name” is not the same as a verse saying “Jehovah's Witnesses.” A verse calling God's word a “sword” is not the same as Luke saying Jesus meant Scripture when he used the word “sword.” And a verse describing God's people is not automatically a verse identifying your modern organization as those people.

Stop moving the goalpost. You don't need to tell me what I should believe, and I don't need to nominate another religion. Just establish the specific claims you've made from the actual text.

Literature › Re: Conversations I Never Finished by Roycemadeit(op): 7:47am On Sep 25

A Conversation Between Ifeoluwa and Royce About God, Morality and the World We Live In... Pt 1

It was almost 7 p.m. in the office. Most people had gone home, but Royce and Ifeoluwa were still at their desks, talking instead of working.

Ifeoluwa looked up from his phone.

"You know, I think the Bible is difficult for you because you've already decided what it is."

Royce turned his chair.

"What do you mean?"

"You don't approach it as a Christian would. You approach it like an engineer debugging a system. You look for contradictions, historical problems, questions about authorship, canon and interpretation. But Christianity isn't simply about analysing a book. It's about becoming a Christian and understanding what it means to serve God."

Royce smiled.

"That's exactly why I question it. If you're telling me that this book contains God's revelation to humanity, then I think I'm entitled to examine how that revelation reached me."

"But even if I show you what the Bible says, you may still refuse to accept it."

"That's possible."

"Why?"

"Because showing me what the Bible says isn't the same thing as showing me that God actually said it."

Ifeoluwa leaned back.

"So what would convince you?"

"Evidence that doesn't depend entirely on the book I'm being asked to believe."

"You mean you want God to speak directly to you?"

"If God created me, loves me, judges me and apparently wants me to spend eternity with him, then I think it's reasonable to ask why I have to depend on ancient writings, translations, religious institutions and competing interpretations to know what he wants."

Ifeoluwa shook his head.

"You make it sound as though Christianity appeared yesterday."

"No. I'm saying that the age of a claim doesn't make it true."

"But the Bible has survived for thousands of years."

"So have other religious traditions."

Ifeoluwa was quiet for a moment.

Royce continued.

"And that's another thing we should be honest about. Christianity didn't spread around the world simply because every population independently examined the Bible and reached the same conclusion. History includes missionary work, political power, colonialism, cultural pressure and conquest. The fact that Christianity became widespread tells me that Christianity became influential. It doesn't, by itself, prove that Christianity is true."

"But the truth of Christianity isn't determined by how it spread."

"Correct."

"So why bring it up?"

"Because I want to know whether my belief came from evidence or inheritance."

Ifeoluwa nodded.

"Fair enough."

Royce turned back toward his monitor.

"But there's an even bigger question."

"What?"

"If Christianity is true, what exactly am I supposed to believe about the God you're describing?"

Ifeoluwa smiled.

"That he loves humanity."

Royce looked at him.

"That's where things get interesting."

To be continued.

Literature › Conversations I Never Finished by Roycemadeit(op): 7:45am On Sep 25

Over the past years, I have had long conversations with several people about Christianity, the Bible, morality, suffering, God, and what it means to be human.

One of those conversations was with my colleague, Ifeoluwa.

What started as an ordinary conversation gradually became a series of arguments about questions neither of us could settle in a few messages. Other conversations followed, each with its own direction and set of questions.

I recently went back through some of those conversations and thought it would be interesting to share them here from time to time.

I won't present them as debates where one person "won." They are simply conversations between people who hold different convictions and are willing to challenge each other's assumptions.

Some of the conversations are about Christianity. Others are about morality, politics, human nature, religion, culture, and the kind of world we are capable of building.

I'll preserve the substance of the conversations while cleaning up obvious errors and arranging them into readable parts.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 7:08pm On Sep 24

MaxInDHouse:
You are really funny!🥱

All these questions has been answered you just want to prove stubborn!😁

If the Bible mentions the name God's modern day worshipers will bear which of the group claiming Christians won't adopt the name?😁

God hid that name until 1931 so that after separating sheep-like ones among goats the group name was pronounced! Isaiah 65:15

And as for the sword it's clearly stated in the Bible book of Ephesians 6:17

Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. ‭Ephesians 6:17 NIV‬ Paul said the scriptures is sharper than physical swords {Hebrews 12:4} so when Jesus said his disciples should go for sword he was referring to spiritual sword that is able to reach into the hearts and divide people's thoughts not physical swords that can only hurt them in the flesh but can't change their minds!🙂

As for changes in doctrine that's the only evidence JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES are truly working on the scriptures not just following a human as the founder of their group. Imagine if nothing changed in what Charles Taze Russell taught 100 years ago how can it be established that he is not the real founder of the one and only organization that keeps on improving day by day?

Well God's word says about Jehovah's Witnesses:

The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day. ‭Proverbs 4:18 NIV‬

Who are the religionist whose path keeps getting brighter?

Ọmọ nah Jehovah's Witnesses who keeps on improving in what they are doing!🙂

.
.
You're repeatedly calling my questions “stubbornness,” but notice what the Bible itself says about me .

Acts 17:11 praises people who examined the Scriptures to determine whether what they were being taught was actually true.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 says, “Test everything; hold fast what is good.”

And Proverbs 18:17 says the first person to present an argument can appear right until another person examines and questions it.

That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm not disputing that you have verses. I'm asking whether those verses actually say what you claim they say.

You say Isaiah 65:15 identifies Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm asking where it says that.

You say Luke 22:36 means Scripture. I'm asking where Luke says that.

You say Isaiah 2:2-4 identifies your organization. I'm asking where Isaiah identifies it.

Quoting the verse is not the same thing as proving your interpretation of the verse.

And if the Bible says to examine, test and question what we are taught, then calling me “stubborn” because I am doing exactly that doesn't answer the questions. grin

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 6:44am On Sep 24

MaxInDHouse:
It's after studying the Bible that we knew God's will for mankind just as Isaiah predicted {Isaiah 2:2-4} of course any religion that members are into politics will surely end up using weapons to settle disparities among themselves that's what Jesus meant when he said his disciples are no part of the world's political struggles! John 17:14-16
So what made it possible for JWs to achieve this is being politically neutral which all other religions just can't do!🙂

Do you know the meaning of the word BAPTIZE?
Well it simply means VOWING to live the rest of one's life in harmony with the teachings of Jesus {Act 2:38} what Jesus said is SWEARING because someone doesn't believe what you said not vowing to do God's will! Matthew 6:33

If you say something is known everywhere but in your own street it's not even found please how is it known?

I can see that you are determined to overturn your former comment that i outsmart you in reasoning but no amount of denial can change that, JWs are the one and only Christian group so if you want to know the truth about what Christians should be doing now look at the JWs and stop deceiving yourself!🥱

.
Max, this isn't about who is smarter. It is about who can actually establish what they are claiming. So let's keep the questions simple:

1. Where does Isaiah 2:2-4 specifically identify Jehovah's Witnesses?

2. Where does Isaiah say Zion, Jerusalem and the mountain of Jehovah represent your 19th-century organization?

3. Where does the Bible say political neutrality and refusing weapons identifies one modern Christian organization?

4. Why does being peaceful prove divine appointment rather than simply prove that your members follow an interpretation?

5. Where does Luke 22:36 say the “sword” means Scripture?

6. Where does baptizō mean to vow? grin

7. If your organization has the correct understanding of God's will, why have its doctrines repeatedly changed, including expectations surrounding 1914, 1925 and 1975 and more recent changes concerning blood components?

8. Why present Putin's award to one Jehovah's Witness family as evidence of something unique to all JWs when other non-JW families received the same award?

9. And where is the actual source for the claim that Terrence Howard said there would be no murderers if everyone were Jehovah's Witnesses?

These are the questions. You haven't answered them. You've introduced other claims, changed the subject, quoted more verses, and questioned my intelligence.

And that is precisely why this isn't about who “outsmarted” whom.

If your position is true, establish it. Don't replace unanswered questions with more erroneous assertions and ignorance.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 9:55pm On Sep 23

MaxInDHouse:
How many Buddhists do you have in your own street?
At least Jehovah's Witnesses are known in your street, district, state and country and these are people who have vowed never to raise weapons against their neighbors just as the Bible God foretold.
That is the clear difference.
When talking about philosophy, education and the rest people from different continents have achieved that but for people in all the nations to vow never to raise weapons against their neighbors (something that surely will bring lasting solution to all our problems globally) no religion has ever achieved that.

So the influence of Buddhism is limited only to orientals!🥱

Is someone saying that every other Christian denomination is violent? Your argument is that Jehovah's Witnesses are uniquely identifiable because their members have committed themselves never to take up weapons. But that still doesn't prove that Isaiah was predicting JW. It only shows that JW has interpreted those passages in a particular way and organized its members around that interpretation.

And there's an interesting point about your use of the word “vowed.” Jesus himself said, “Do not swear an oath at all” and James 5:12 gives essentially the same instruction. You said, "your members have made a solemn vow never to take up weapons," where does that particular organizational vow come from, and how is it different from the kind of oath Jesus told his followers not to make?

The number of Buddhists on my street has nothing to do with whether Buddhism is a global religion. A religion's global reach is not measured by who happens to live next door to me. That is a rather impressive attempt to turn one's neighbourhood into a census of humanity.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 5:11am On Sep 23

MaxInDHouse:
Not asking for SIMILAR RESULT but a result that's beneficial for mankind in general just mention one as in any religion you can think of with a result that's note worthy globally.

Another problem with atheists is this thought of slavery.
Slavery started since mankind's history and it will continue to be until God's Kingdom come.

Perhaps i should school you on what slavery means.

You guys think it's about forceful labour but you're wrong. Slavery means keeping you in a situation where whatever you are making can only take care of your needs just as slave masters back then also make sure their slaves eat, drink, wear clothes, have sex and sleep on beds.
If you are the slave of a wealthy king you will surely worth more than the slave of someone who is just managing.
The same applies till today.

You mentioned Buddhism so can you mention one achievement of that religion that is noticable globally?

Ọmọ you can't compare what is limited to a geographic location to what is global nah!🤔

Do you think there are no African traditional religions that's also noteworthy?

Of course there are but what we are saying is it can never ever go round the globe to achieve what is beneficial to all mankind the way the Bible God stated in the book of Isaiah!🙂

Max, you're still mixing two different arguments. You're asking for a religion that has produced something globally beneficial to mankind. Buddhism immediately qualifies as a global religion with major contributions to philosophy, ethics, meditation, monastic education and nonviolence. Its influence is not confined to one geographic location, so dismissing it as “limited” doesn't address the point.

And the argument that slavery simply means a person is kept at a subsistence level doesn't change the historical meaning of slavery. Slavery has involved ownership or control of people, forced labour, restricted freedom and treating human beings as property. The fact that masters sometimes provided food, clothing or shelter does not make the person free. That is precisely why your comparison doesn't work.

But more importantly, you are still assuming your conclusion. Isaiah 2:2-4 says nations will stream to the mountain of Jehovah, learn his ways, and turn their weapons into tools of peace. It does not say, “In the 19th century, a group will emerge, call itself Jehovah's Witnesses, interpret this passage as applying to itself, and then use that interpretation as evidence that it is the group I predicted.”

P.S:_{Imagine a prophecy saying that a six-foot man wearing a white robe and red sandals would come down a mountain proclaiming peace. Someone reads the prophecy, deliberately grows himself to six feet, buys the red sandals, puts on the white robe, climbs the mountain and performs exactly what the prophecy described. Does his performance prove that he is the man the prophecy predicted, or does it simply show that he deliberately reproduced the description?}

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 9:53pm On Sep 22

MaxInDHouse:
With what Jehovah's Witnesses produced through our interpretation of the scriptures which is a global family of peace loving worshipers who don't join in wars just as Isaiah 2:2-4 says can you give me one religion and it's produce that could be of great benefits for mankind?🙂

Max, perhaps you should rephrase the question. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian religious movement, so asking me to name another “religion” whose members have produced the same results frames erroneous comparison. An accurate question would be: “Can you name another Christian denomination or religious movement whose members have produced similar results?”

And if we're talking about the effects of religions more broadly, Christianity itself has a complicated record. Buddhist societies, for example, did not build the transatlantic slave trade or European colonial empires under the Christian banner.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 4:58pm On Sep 22

MaxInDHouse:
With what Jehovah's Witnesses produced through our interpretation of the scriptures which is a global family of peace loving worshipers who don't join in wars just as Isaiah 2:2-4 says can you give me one religion and it's produce that could be of great benefits for mankind?🙂

Let me analogize. Imagine a prophecy saying that a six-foot man wearing a white robe and red sandals would come down a mountain proclaiming peace. Someone reads the prophecy, deliberately grows himself to six feet, buys the red sandals, puts on the white robe, climbs the mountain and performs exactly what the prophecy described. Does his performance prove that he is the man the prophecy predicted, or does it simply show that he deliberately reproduced the description?

That is essentially the question with Isaiah 2:2-4. Jehovah's Witnesses have studied the passage, interpreted what they believe its “fruit” should look like, organized themselves accordingly, and then point to that behavior as proof that the prophecy identifies them. But fulfilling an interpretation of a prophecy is not automatically proof that you are the subject of the prophecy. You first have to establish independently that Isaiah was actually predicting Jehovah's Witnesses.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 8:53am On Sep 21

MaxInDHouse:
So the religion that achieved what Isaiah says is the one and only true religion {Isaiah 2:2-4} that is the fruit expected of the one and only true religion! Matthew 7:16-18🙂

Jehovah's Witnesses are reproducing what they believe the Bible teaches, just as other denominations reproduce their own interpretations. That may show consistency with their interpretation, but it doesn't prove that God established their organization. Especially when the movement itself has undergone major doctrinal and organizational changes since Russell.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 9:32pm On Sep 20

MaxInDHouse:
All these things are simple but as you've chosen to be an atheist and you don't want to accept that there is original before fake you are angrily arguing as if your life depends on it.😁
Ọmọ God didn't just choose the Israelites or Jerusalem for jokes rather it's to start pure worship that will help gather honest hearted and sincere individuals globally. Isaiah 2:2
So when they failed the promise was given to another nation of people from different countries who are PRODUCING the fruit expected of true worshipers. Matthew 21:43
That is where Jehovah's Witnesses comes in!🙂

.
.
Christianity has produced countless denominations, all appealing to the Bible while arriving at different doctrines and practices. Take two Nigerian examples: Christ Embassy says its doctrine is Bible-based and formally teaches the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the rapture and other doctrines. The Nigerian Baptist Convention likewise says Scripture is the authoritative standard for faith and practice, yet it has its own statement of faith and doctrinal framework.

Jehovah's Witnesses are doing the same basic thing: reading the same collection of Scriptures, interpreting passages, combining them, and building a particular doctrinal system from those interpretations. The difference is that each group believes its interpretation is correct.

Your own history demonstrates the problem. The movement developed from the 19th-century Bible Student movement associated with Charles Taze Russell, later became Jehovah's Witnesses, and has undergone doctrinal and organizational changes. So when was the earlier interpretation God's instruction, and when did the later interpretation become God's instruction? If both were presented as God's truth at different times, then somebody was interpreting God's word, and that somebody was human.

If God gave humanity one Bible and intended it to identify one true organisation, why do sincere people repeatedly arrive at competing interpretations from the same book? You have interpreted those passages in a way that leads to Jehovah's Witnesses, just as others have interpreted them in ways that lead to their own denominations. The Bible may be the source text, but identifying what it “really means” is a human interpretive process, as I said, the contradictions of doctrines and tenets between bible believing churches elaborately demonstrates that the verses are defined by humans, who pick what they like and from there create a denomination.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 8:13pm On Sep 20

MaxInDHouse:
Zion symbolizes pure worship so when ancient Israelites sing songs of worship in that place they believe it's acceptable to God {Psalms 137:1} but Jesus said that place has lost its glory due to the attitude of its inhabitants! Matthew 23:37-38

Jesus said shortly after his death true worshipers will be wiped out by false religionists claiming Christians {Matthew 13:25} and in time it's this false religion that'll flourish globally causing confusion until when Jesus returns as a spirit king to restore pure worship {Matthew 13:30} it's then sincere people will be able to identify true religion because it will produce the same fruit as first century disciples of Christ! Matthew 7:16-18

There are many of them in this forum please ask them to present a better performing group than Jehovah's Witnesses!

His teachings will help separate evildoers from honest hearted people so while the honest hearted and sincere individuals use his teachings to achieve what Isaiah 2:2-4 while evildoers claiming they believe in God or Jesus will be blindfolded by Satan to continue hating, fighting and killing themselves! Revelation 6:3-4
So the sword Jesus brought which is truth found in God's word {Ephesians 6:17} will divide people so that righteous and the unrighteous people are separated! Hebrews 4:12
If Jesus actually brought physical sword how is it that he never used it neither does his first century disciples?
The only disciples who used the physical sword was reproved by Jesus whom you are quoting now! Matthew 26:52🥱

Max, let's take your claims separately because you're repeatedly moving from what a verse says to what Jehovah's Witnesses interpret it to mean.
You say Zion symbolizes pure worship. But Isaiah 2:2-4 actually speaks of the mountain of the Lord, Zion and Jerusalem. Where does Isaiah tell us that these references represent a religious movement that would emerge from the nineteenth-century Bible Student movement and eventually become Jehovah's Witnesses?

You then say true worship disappeared after the first century and was eventually restored. But Matthew 13:24-30 doesn't say Christianity would disappear for centuries until Charles Taze Russell and the Bible Students emerged in the nineteenth century. If that's what the passage means, show how you get from Jesus' parable to that specific historical conclusion without first assuming Jehovah's Witness theology.

Then you appeal to “by their fruits” in Matthew 7:16-18. But you've already decided what the identifying fruits are, combined them with Isaiah 2:2-4, and then declared Jehovah's Witnesses the only organization fulfilling them. Where does Jesus say Isaiah 2:2-4 should be used as an exclusive test for identifying Jehovah's Witnesses centuries later? That's the connection I'm asking you to demonstrate.

Your argument about former JWs is equally strange. Someone doesn't need to find a “better religion” before concluding that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong. Russell himself questioned the religious teachings available to him. Why should questioning one's religion count as searching for truth when it leads toward your movement, but become bitterness or dishonesty when someone applies the same scrutiny to Jehovah's Witnesses and leaves?

And there is another problem with using Ephesians to explain what Jesus meant in Luke. Luke's introduction, Luke 1:1-4, presents him as someone who investigated accounts handed down by eyewitnesses rather than claiming to be an eyewitness himself. Paul, traditionally regarded as the author of Ephesians, was not one of Jesus' original Twelve. Ephesians and Luke were therefore separate writings from different contexts. They were only brought together later as part of the developing New Testament canon, through the recognition and listing of these writings by early Catholic Christian leaders and church councils. So Ephesians 6:17 cannot simply be treated as Paul's explanation of what Jesus meant in Luke 22:36. If Ephesians had never become part of the New Testament, what evidence in Luke 22:36 itself would tell us that Jesus meant “Scripture” rather than an actual sword? The connection is an interpretation made later, not something Luke explicitly tells us.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 7:12am On Sep 20

MaxInDHouse:
This is the where Isaiah started:

In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as the highest of the mountains; it will be exalted above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Isaiah 2:2
(The one and only true religion will be noticed by sincere people throughout the world )
Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:3
(They will use what is found in the Bible which is the word of the God of Abraham to teach themselves)
He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. Isaiah 2:4
(‭God will use His word to judge those who come together as one religion, they will settle their disparities peacefully among themselves, erase making, buying, selling and using of weapons in their midst and they will no longer learn war)
Isaiah 2:2-4 NIV‬
Ọmọ no matter how stubborn you may prove to be Jehovah's Witnesses have achieved this globally among themselves and that is the sign showing that this group is the one and only true religion?🙂

Jesus is the Prince of Peace that is what he taught his disciples!🙂

Now you are joking right?😁

Because it's this organization that has fulfilled what God promised in the Bible book of Isaiah 2:2-4 while all others are still being influenced by Satan to kill themselves! Revelation 6:3-4🥱

.
.

Max, let's take this one step further. You keep telling me Isaiah 2:2-4 identifies Jehovah's Witnesses, so let's establish exactly how you get there. What is “Zion” in your interpretation today? What is “Jerusalem”? Where is the physical or identifiable mountain described in Isaiah? If you tell me those are symbolic, then show me where Isaiah establishes that symbolism and why those symbols specifically become the modern Jehovah's Witness organization. You cannot simply take an ancient prophecy, replace its geographical references with a modern organization, and then use the resulting interpretation as evidence that the organization is divinely appointed.

And there is an even bigger historical question. Jehovah's Witnesses did not suddenly appear with the Bible. The movement developed out of the Bible Student movement associated with Charles Taze Russell in the 19th century, and its doctrines and organizational structures subsequently changed. So if God had already given humanity the Bible, why did the definitive understanding of its prophecies supposedly have to emerge through a particular modern movement centuries later? grin

What happened to everyone who sincerely studied the Bible before Russell? Were they simply unable to understand God's message until the 19th century? grin

And if human beings can leave their previous religion because they believe they have discovered a more accurate interpretation, why couldn't the same thing happen within Jehovah's Witnesses? Are you saying nobody has ever left Jehovah's Witnesses because they concluded that its interpretation was wrong? Or are you simply dismissing everyone who does so as bitter, dishonest, or lacking understanding? grin

You call Jesus the “Prince of Peace.” Let's look at what Jesus himself said.

Isaiah 9:6 calls someone the “Prince of Peace.” Yet Jesus says in Matthew 10:34-36:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.”

He continues that his message would set father against son, daughter against mother, and members of the same household against one another.

Luke 12:51-53 repeats the point: “I tell you, not at all, but rather division.”

The Bible itself says his message would produce division, even within families.

How do you reconcile “Prince of Peace” with Jesus explicitly saying he came to bring a sword and division? That tension is in the text itself.
Now, who's joking huh

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 11:41am On Sep 19

MaxInDHouse:
Intelligence is what you need!
I was a former Muslim but instead of dwelling on the past i keep on with the future telling everyone that i've found the one and only true religion.
You are an atheist so all what matters to you is how to discredit all religions but with a second thought why not ask any individual if they have found another religion that's better than the one they left?
If someone says JWs are evil and false the next question any right thinking person needs to ask is:
"Have you found a better religion?"
Imagine a man/woman who keeps on talking about his/her ex but never speak about his/her new found love do you think he/she is sincere?
Ọmọ when you leave someone or something what you should be talking about is the next move but if you keep dwelling on the past then any intellectual will know that you are the problem yourself!🙂

Where is your honesty my friend?
This is not rocket science but common sense. Jesus was talking to twelve men and only two swords was found in their possession and Jesus said "it is enough" please how can two swords be enough for twelve men abi you forgot he said each of them must have his own?🥱
Ọmọ try and think deeper!🙂

Because Jesus said "by their FRUITS you will know" {Matthew 7:16-18} so what is the fruit of the JW organization?
Remember the fruit is not about the complaint that's different from place to place the fruit of a tree should be the same everywhere the tree is found.
So only Jehovah's Witnesses have the same fruit of Isaiah 2:4 globally. Members of this group no longer learn war anymore just as Jesus God's only begotten Son commanded his disciples! Mark 12:31🙂

But you're still assuming the conclusion you're supposed to prove.

You say the “fruit” is Isaiah 2:4 and then conclude that only Jehovah's Witnesses satisfy it. But Isaiah 2:4 says that people will “beat their swords into plowshares” and “learn war no more.” It doesn't say, “This will identify one modern religious organization.” You've added that part yourself. And even if Jehovah's Witnesses practice nonviolence globally, that establishes a characteristic of the organization, not automatically that God chose the organization.

As for Luke 22:36, saying two swords could not possibly be enough for twelve men is precisely why the passage requires interpretation. But you cannot resolve that difficulty simply by declaring that Jesus meant something symbolic. The text says “sword”; Ephesians 6:17 gives a separate metaphor about the word of God. Show me where Luke 22:36 itself says the sword means Scripture.

And that's the question you've continued to avoid: how do you know that the interpretation you're defending is God's interpretation rather than the interpretation your organization has given you?

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 7:29am On Sep 19

MaxInDHouse:
I'm using what is called WISDOM instead of following mere rumor.
So far the accusations is coming from one side of the planet just as a part of the planet says JWs are terrorists, another say JWs are fetish then this one says JWs are rapists but you dodged the other two instead of critically looking into the matter as these accusations doesn't make sense. It should be that all the nations are saying the same thing either JWs are terrorists or rapists or fetish not that different reports are coming from different part of the planet regarding one single organization that has proved to be the one and only peaceful global group. That is what i call CRITICAL THINKING!🥱

Max, you're confusing interpretation with evidence. The fact that different countries report different accusations against Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't make those reports false. And what about former Jehovah's Witnesses? Are you suggesting that every ex-JW who raises concerns simply left for no reason, or that none of them has a legitimate reason for leaving? If former members are automatically dismissed as bitter or spiteful, while current members are automatically treated as credible, you've created a system where your conclusion can never be challenged.

As for Luke 22:36, you're again presenting your interpretation as though the text itself says it. Jesus said, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” His disciples then produced two actual swords, and Jesus said, “It is enough.” Ephesians 6:17 later uses “the sword” metaphorically for God's word, but Luke 22:36 itself never says that Jesus meant Scripture. That's your interpretation.

We go back to the foundational question: how do you distinguish what the Bible actually says from the interpretation your organization places upon it? Calling my reasoning biased doesn't answer that question.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 7:51pm On Sep 18

MaxInDHouse:
That is why i asked you:

How many of such cases do you have in Africa?

As long as it's a Western thing then using it as an identity of a peaceful global organization is also confirmation bias.
I showed you what the Bible said will be the sign of pure worship you are referring to false stories from one particular side of the planet and using it to judge the world's most peaceful group simply because you don't want to see a difference as if rape and other such cases aren't reported in other religions globally.
Ọmọ you are the one who is bias here from the beginning God has given us a sign that will help all sincere and honest hearted people to know the one and only true religion and i have given you that sign so if you are now banking on what is not well grounded then you are the one who is bias!🙂

Max, asking “how many cases do you have in Africa?” doesn't answer the question. The geographical location of documented cases does not determine whether the cases are genuine, and the fact that abuse also occurs in other religions is irrelevant to whether it occurs among JWs.

You keep asserting that the reports are false without actually demonstrating that they are false. As for your “sign of pure worship,” you have shown verses describing peace, love and unity, but you still haven't shown where the Bible says that these qualities uniquely identify one modern organization.

And there's the other issue you haven't addressed: Jesus himself told his disciples in Luke 22:36, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one,” yet you present being completely weaponless as an unmistakable biblical test.

Before calling my position biased, reconcile the actual biblical passages with the doctrine you're using as your proof.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 9:03am On Sep 18

MaxInDHouse:
Please i don't mean to disrespect you but how old are you? 🙂

Let me teach you how to think CRITICALLY.

Do you think a happily married woman will come forward and tell stories about how she was raped?
How many of those claiming this are happily married as family women?

Come on these people are being spiteful. No normal woman happily married with her own children will come forward to start telling stories of how she was raped.

For instance there was a case of one woman who said a man (JW) raped her some 14 years back but after the investigation the court dismissed the case.

Why?

They discovered she's actually the one who initiated s3x with the young man when he was in his teens, her husband left her due to her promiscuity and she was using the teenager who was 17 years old back then while she was in her late 20s but when the young man decided to stop she reported him to the elders that he once raped her the story didn't add up so the elders told her this is slander because the young man was about to get married to a younger woman and she was determined to spoil his relationship with the younger woman. She later left the organization and still took the matter to court but the same thing happened.
But had it been she cooked her story well the brother will be behind bars now.
I am one of the elders and i have heard several cases of ladies who have had s3x with brothers secretly only to come forward and start telling us what happened several years back simply because the brother is now married or getting married to another person and they are left out.
So think critically not just swallow stories on the Internet!🙂

Critical thinking means examining evidence, not deciding beforehand that every accusation must be spiteful.

A woman's marital status has absolutely no bearing on whether a rape allegation is true, and the fact that someone has children does not make her incapable of being a victim. Your personal story about one woman whose case was dismissed is an individual case, not evidence that the other allegations are fabricated.

And your statement that you have heard such cases as an elder is also anecdotal. If a particular case was dismissed, then examine that case on its own evidence. But you cannot take one disputed case and use it to declare that thousands of other allegations are lies. That's not critical thinking. That's confirmation bias.

1 Like 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 5:35am On Sep 17

MaxInDHouse:
You are not a JW so i as one here is telling you that those people are lying to create enemies for the organization.

WHY?

Because they have lost the best of friends who stopped talking to them after leaving the group they are determined to say anything against the organization. That is why you can't see any none JW reporting such. The JW is the happiest of all groups if there is any other happy group of people so when they find out that JWs have stopped associating with them for their immoral behaviors they decided to make unsuspecting people like you view JWs as evil people.
So they are all liars.🙂

You are not actually addressing the evidence, Max. You are simply assuming that anyone who reports wrongdoing by a JW must be lying because they are former members, bitter, or trying to create enemies for the organization. That is circular reasoning: the organization is assumed to be good, therefore anyone presenting evidence against it must be dishonest. You haven't demonstrated that these people are lying, nor have you answered the actual question I raised. You have only explained why you believe they must be lying. Calling every critic a liar doesn't make the evidence disappear. It only shows how far you are willing to go to protect a conclusion you have already reached.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 7:50pm On Sep 16

MaxInDHouse:
So the fact that reports comes from one part of the world should tell you something is wrong with your judgement that the organization hasn't trained members to be law abiding.
Another thing you failed to notice is that when accusations are coming none ever reported that a JW member molested the child of a none JW.
Or are they not attracted to other children except JWs?😁

Imagine when you hear reports of Muslims killing people do you hear that it only affects Muslims?

Ọmọ something doesn't add up in those reports.
For instance in places like Africa the reports is that JWs are fetish, in Russia JWs are terrorists, in Western countries JWs are child molesters. Haba! Please don't let atheism blur your senses o!😁

.
My senses are not the issue here, Max. You still haven't answered the questions I've been asking you.

Instead, you've moved from the evidence to questioning my judgment and telling me not to let atheism “blur my senses.”

Whether an abuser's victim is JW or non-JW is irrelevant to the question. The issue is whether your claim that “all of us obey the law” can be defended. You haven't demonstrated that.

And calling reports from different countries contradictory doesn't make them disappear. Answer the questions first. Insults and emojis are not answers.

1 Like 1 Share

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Christianity The True Religion? Debate by Roycemadeit(m): 5:43pm On Sep 15

MaxInDHouse:
It does my friend as long as such reports aren't coming from other countries except Western nations it simply means that isn't the identity of the organization!

Exactly what i said if one family can't vouch for millions of people surely reports from one part of the earth is not enough to evaluate a global family of peace loving worshipers.

The point is if we are molesting our children as you think how can a family in the same group of child molesters be awarded a national glory?
So if such reports aren't coming from other countries except the West you should think twice!🙂

.
.
You're still confusing “this happened in some countries” with “therefore it didn't happen elsewhere.” The absence of reports you've personally encountered in Africa does not prove the absence of abuse.

How can you vouch for every single JW member worldwide and claim “all of us obey the law”? A national parenting award given to one family doesn't prove that claim, just as reports from particular countries don't prove that abuse is universal. The evidence has to be examined case by case.

And your Putin example doesn't establish what you think it does either. The Order of Parental Glory was awarded to multiple families, not exclusively Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact that one JW family raised eight children and received a parenting award simply means that that particular family was recognized for its parenting. It doesn't certify every JW family worldwide, nor does it establish that every member obeys the law.

More importantly, the Bible itself doesn't provide comprehensive parenting manual that guarantees every Christian parent will raise children perfectly.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 38 pages)