It’s her house, and she wants your help dealing with these…invaders…but she won’t listen to you on how to effectively deal with the situation, essentially tying your hands and taking away your best tactics and strategies.
Does that about sum it up?
If so, it sounds like Vietnam all over again. And we all know how well that worked out last time around.
So, unless you want to be evacced off the roof of your friend’s house via helicopter, give it up as a bad job, man.
I know what your point was. I’m saying that it doesn’t matter whether Jesus did it first - unless you’re already a Christian, it’s no more convincing an excuse than the actions of any other two-thousand year dead guy.
The last time a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my door, I just talked with them. I don’t think I was quite what they had expected, though… They didn’t really seem to be too up on Augustinian theology, or the philosophy of eternity, or various other bits of Deep Thought I’ve picked up over the years. By the end of the conversation, I had managed to convince them that the book I read was superior to theirs. It went something like this:
Me: “Listen, the Bible is divinely inspired, right? But it was written down by humans, translated by humans, carried through the ages by humans, and published by humans, right?”
JW: “Well, yes.”
Me: “Well, suppose I told you of a book which was written directly by none other than God Himself, in the original manuscript, in His own handwriting?”
JW: “I would very much like to read that book.”
Me: “And what if I told you that this book were written in a language you didn’t know?”
JW: “Well then I would go and learn that language.”
Me: “The book I speak of is the Universe, and I, as a scientist, have dedicated myself to learning its language.”
It was around then that they said they’d have to consult with their superiors, who might be coming back with them that weekend. Oddly, I didn’t see them or their superiors again.
Are you guaranteeing this kind of behaviour from JW’s to the same extent as your other knowledge on how each and every JW behaves? Because in all honesty, i’d tend to think “they’re laughing at me behind my back” to be pretty rude, let alone laughing in your face, and if this is going to be true for most then I don’t think i’d like to have a chat with them. We can disagree on types of proseylatizing, but i’m pretty darn sure there’s no Bible passage ending “And lo, Jesus laughed in the unbeliever’s face, mocking his arguments soundly.”
Actually, my post was tongue-in-cheek, and I apologize if it didn’t come through that way.
I found Chronos’s post to be stunningly presumptuous, condescending and arrogant, and it seemed funny to me that he appears to be oblivious to the simple fact he was witnessing to them.
The simple fact is, the elegantly written book he refers to has no prose of any sort that deals with the question of {the existence, or non-existence of] God or parallel questions.
That hasn’t kept message board denizens and other miscreants from inserting ham handed pig latin addendums into this book, hoping to impute some objectivity into their subjective belief systems. (or at least masquerade them as objective)
The truth is, this language he’s mastered can only lead him to agnosticism. To the extent he is anything but an agnostic (an atheist, I presume) he has adopted a subjective belief system that has more in common with the bible than with science. (For science must remain silent on the matter, while the bible (and it’s “faithful”) feel no need for such restraint)
I’m not entirely sure what’s so stunning - those very points are pretty ones the ones you could draw up those he was talking to on, as well. Witnessing is pretty much inherently those things, to one extent to another.
I’m afraid I must disagree with your simple fact. Certainly, there are questions on the subject that science cannot study. But declaring that science cannot at all deal with the issue is equally wrong. It pretty much depends on the characteristics we ascribe to the god in question. If we posit one that does not interact with the universe at all, certainly, science currently can’t say a jot about that. But if the god is posited to have some impact upon the universe, we can certainly study that impact, and through it, the god itself. For example; if I suggest a god that hates all living creatures that are green, and does not permit them to live, then we with our science may go out looking for green living creatures. We might use our science to create green creatures, through understanding of genetics or even manipulation of genes. It’s really quite possible to use science to study the existence or non-existence of gods.
And i’d be careful about lumping message board denizens in with miscreants; when I choose to insult a group of people, I try to make sure i’m not among them first.
Barb and I used to get very effective results by welcoming them in and then proselytizing them as to why they should become Episcopalians – complete with Scriptural citations.
Probably the funniest point of this was during the summer after we took in the homeless teens – two J.W.'s showed up to witness to us, we started our routine, and two of the boys, on a lark, started explaining to them why they should become Satanists. Oddly, they found a good excuse to leave quite quickly – following which Barb gave the boys a high five.
If you’re so inclined, I’d be particularly interested in your thoughts along the way as to whether these ‘plausibilities’ (starts to sound subjective almost from the beginning, huh?) have more in common with the subjective quality of religion, or the objective quality of science.
The atheist that uses science as the basis for his atheism has adopted a group of subjective beliefs, from the known, objective facts derived from science.
On it’s face, I have no issue with that. (and would gladly post in this thread as an atheist) Science routinely draws inferences from what is known, or can be proven. It is common for these subjective inferences to be revised, or even abandoned, as the testing methods (and the data that comes from them) improve. That is a strength of science. At any rate, the less that is known on any given subject, the more subjective and speculative the inferences.
As to existence or non-existence of some super natural being we would call “God”, the data is so incomplete, and the testing methods so inadequate that science is silent on the question. (although science may one day be able to answer the question)
In the meantime, the person who asserts that the data shows there is no God is engaging in an exercise speculative enough that he has more in common with religionists than with scientists.
Having said that, I will add that I’ve never known a JW who did not not politely excuse themselves when I did not express interest in hearing their gospel. They’re nice people, by and large.
As a general rule, I avoid positing what “God said”, but rather what the “Bible said” (says). (I have little interests in debating “faith” here for a variety of reasons, and post narrowly as a result)
If I’m around the next time we have a Bible thread I’ll show you.
Maybe that was hyperbole, but in my reading he’s saying that he doesn’t believe the Bible is the best source to discover the truth about God or the Universe.
Only to a very limited extent. Some specific beliefs can be examined for plausibility but the existence of God is beyond the capabilities of science to answer. Science can only say, “we don’t know” and individual scientists can express their personal opinions.
I have to wonder as RT does whether the command to go and preach was meant for every follower. It seems completely understandable for a true believer to want to share the good news with anyone who will listen. It’s also understandable that rejection ridicule or worse pales in comparison to doing God’s will as you see it.
Still, it seems clear to me that Jesus advocated testifying by example and commanded his apostles to go and teach. I suppose it’s reasonable to assume all followers are commanded to do so, but it’s not the only reasonable interpretation. An alternative is that it falls on a few to actively seek to spread the word by proselytizing and others to demonstrate by example the details of his teachings in action so others , seeing and experiencing the fruits of the spirit, might seek to understand.
There are other commands which might be subordinate to the command to tell the story of Jesus {which I assume includes JW doctrine} and that would be to seek the truth rather than the teachings and traditions of men.
I feel this is a bit too generalized, though in this kind of debate that’s sometimes necessary. I would refer to myself as an athiest, but I do not hold the exact same position on the existence of all gods. On some i’m agnostic, on some I have a stronger position. I’d imagine that this is true for most atheists, really, so it’s painting with a too broad brush to speak of one thing as the basis of atheism - there’s likely to be many things, and many unbelieved in gods.
And indeed, the more that is known, the less subjective and speculative such inferences can be. On the most extreme end of the scale, such as with my green creature example, if you can find one green creature then you do know all there is to know on the question of the existence of green creatures; the answer is yes.
I’ve a request for you, and I apologise for singling you out on this one. Could you please use “god” when referring to generic or non-specific gods, and “God” when referring to the Christian/Judaic god in particular? It’s difficult for me to know sometimes which you’re talking about.
That said, I think you’re incorrect. Off the top of my head, one of the biggies about God is that he is the only god. By disproving the existence of my green-creature-hating god, we actually increase the likelihood that God may exist, however slightly. Data isn’t incomplete across the board, nor are testing methods uniformly useless - there’s plenty of things we can do that test a function of God’s (or many other potential god’s) existence. It may in many cases not provide a shout, but it doesn’t stay silent on the issue, either.
On this I would agree. Find me such a person and i’ll be happy to say they’re wrong, too.
My personal wager would be this; getting across the message should have two points on which its goodness can be judged. Effectiveness, and Christliness while doing so. Were the potential proseylatizer terrible at doing so - if they managed in fact to convince people the other way, or at the least convinced no converts - then it’s probably not the task, or at least the method, for them. God seems to be quite big on calling the right person for the right job; I don’t see that, in terms of getting the message out, he would be so arbitrary when the very souls of man are at stake.
But i’m a big fan of proselyatizing by doing, so that may cloud my views a little.
