First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#1 Sep 18, 2013
How would a jw answer?

If you could only select one, without any circular variation or reasoning, which is more important:

Faith in God?

or

Faith that the watchtower governing body is God's channel?
UNchained

Loudon, TN

#2 Sep 18, 2013
bttt
Remnant143999

Albuquerque, NM

#3 Sep 18, 2013
Their most holy idol the wtbts.
Blessed

Wausau, WI

#4 Sep 18, 2013
That's if they will answer Honestly ..
Don't hold your breath ....

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#5 Sep 19, 2013
I've had jw's tell me without the organization, it is impossible to worship Jehovah....so I imagine faith in the governing body is more important than faith in Jehovah.
little lamb

Collingwood, Australia

#6 Sep 19, 2013
" we must obey God as ruler rather then men'

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#7 Sep 19, 2013
Considering that Jws believe you cannot be saved if you are not a member of the organization, I would say , it would be faith in the organization and the GB aka F&DS. You probably will not get a witness to answer this, but they cant and be honest with their answer.
Thirdwitness

Oklahoma City, OK

#8 Sep 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
How would a jw answer?
If you could only select one, without any circular variation or reasoning, which is more important:
Faith in God?
or
Faith that the watchtower governing body is God's channel?
That's easy. Faith in the true God but not that nameless sadistic triune nationalistic racist earth burning sin condoning ransomless kingdomless disunified disorganized contradictory disagreeable confused god.

If your faith is in the true God that means you accept God's organization.

See how easy your hypotheticals are?
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#9 Sep 19, 2013
Thirdwitness wrote:
<quoted text>
That's easy. Faith in the true God but not that nameless sadistic triune nationalistic racist earth burning sin condoning ransomless kingdomless disunified disorganized contradictory disagreeable confused god.
If your faith is in the true God that means you accept God's organization.
See how easy your hypotheticals are?
See, you couldn't answer without going into all the qualifiers.

So, faith in God is sufficient without any qualifiers, correct?
UNchained

Loudon, TN

#10 Sep 19, 2013
Thirdwitness wrote:
<quoted text>
That's easy. Faith in the true God but not that nameless sadistic triune nationalistic racist earth burning sin condoning ransomless kingdomless disunified disorganized contradictory disagreeable confused god.
If your faith is in the true God that means you accept God's organization.
See how easy your hypotheticals are?
It's easy to see how you swallowed THIS poisonous food from your idol:

Faith in Jehovah’s Victorious Organization
3/1/79 Watchtower
Page 12

“The proof is in the pudding!”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#11 Sep 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
How would a jw answer?
If you could only select one, without any circular variation or reasoning, which is more important:
Faith in God?
or
Faith that the watchtower governing body is God's channel?
Faith in God.

“The proof is in the pudding!”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#12 Sep 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>
See, you couldn't answer without going into all the qualifiers.
So, faith in God is sufficient without any qualifiers, correct?

What you fail realize that there is a lot involved in having true faith in God.
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#13 Sep 19, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith in God.
I agree.

For a follow up- Can you have one without the other?
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#14 Sep 19, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
What you fail realize that there is a lot involved in having true faith in God.
How would you know the extent of what I realize?

“The proof is in the pudding!”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#15 Sep 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
For a follow up- Can you have one without the other?
You can have one without the other - it's called ignorance.

Here is my logic, convince me I'm wrong and I will denounce being one of Jehovah's Witnesses today.

If you lived during the time of the apostles and older men would your faith in God be complete without devoting yourself to the teachings of the apostles and older men? Acts 2:42

The answer is no, you could not willingly reject the apostles and older men, ultimately not believing them as being hand picked by God through Jesus and still expect your faith in God to be valid.

It should be no different today. The problem is we can't agree on where these brothers are that take the lead (similarly to the apostles and older men) amongst God's sheep today, or if they even exist.

“The proof is in the pudding!”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#16 Sep 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know the extent of what I realize?
You probably wouldn't be asking which is more important you fully knew and understand whats involved in faith to God.
jace

Alexandria, VA

#17 Sep 19, 2013
Duh-boy"

"If you lived during the time of the apostles and older men would your faith in God be complete without devoting yourself to the teachings of the apostles and older men? "

Acts 2:42

&&&&&&

Do you see what you just referenced ???

You referenced the word of God

Acts 2:4

And now you want to turn around and reference a wt bound volume as the basis of your argument

When your only reference is a bound volume and not the bible

That my friend is your key

for example take blood
The wt said the issue was a Personal matter between the person and god

Then the wt Said

No whole blood or anything fractions DERIVED from blood

If someone were to have interviewed someone from Writing and asked what bible text forbids using any thing derived from whole blood

Do you acknowledge that no one I writing could actually take the bible and show it ??

Then later the same guys in writing started creating a list of approved fractions and unapproved fractions

The post began to Grow and grow
What was on one list was moved over to the other list

Now if being interviewed by 60 min CNN. Etc and the guys representing the writing dept are asked

Show us from the bible where you got this list from

They could not
Now here is your problem
The writing dept don't claim inspiration or infallibility

So at this point they are now jacking with folks lives cause their readers think they actually know what they are talking about

While all the viewers at home are seeing two guys playing god with folks lives

Since last year folks were told it was a sin to take fraction ABC. But this year it's ok

Wt should have stick with bible commentary instead of climbing into the SEAT OF MOSES

You got to stop comparing 1 Cor to the. Dec 15 2013 wt

They are both not on the same par and neither are the writers of each

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#18 Sep 19, 2013
Thirdwitness wrote:
<quoted text>
That's easy. Faith in the true God but not that nameless sadistic triune nationalistic racist earth burning sin condoning ransomless kingdomless disunified disorganized contradictory disagreeable confused god.
If your faith is in the true God that means you accept God's organization.
See how easy your hypotheticals are?
Compared to a faith in a god that one day throws a hissy fit and kills 6.9 billion people because they didn't get baptized in a publishing companies p.r. convention.

Really?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#19 Sep 19, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can have one without the other - it's called ignorance.
Here is my logic, convince me I'm wrong and I will denounce being one of Jehovah's Witnesses today.
If you lived during the time of the apostles and older men would your faith in God be complete without devoting yourself to the teachings of the apostles and older men? Acts 2:42
The answer is no, you could not willingly reject the apostles and older men, ultimately not believing them as being hand picked by God through Jesus and still expect your faith in God to be valid.
It should be no different today. The problem is we can't agree on where these brothers are that take the lead (similarly to the apostles and older men) amongst God's sheep today, or if they even exist.
Back then those apostles did not go beyond what Jesus taught, Paul is an exception, he went beyond what jesus taught. That is why we have more copies of copies of a couple thousand copies of what Paul wrote or had written more than jesus's own disciples. Many people of that day rejected what Paul taught, like the essenes, many others rejected what the apostles taught and only followed what Paul taught, others rejected everything other than what Peter taught.

So 2K plus years later a group of men who also have a history of unorganized beliefs and cults of dissention arrive and you are worshipping one of them. Time for you to turn in your letter of disassociation.
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#20 Sep 19, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can have one without the other - it's called ignorance.
Here is my logic, convince me I'm wrong and I will denounce being one of Jehovah's Witnesses today.
If you lived during the time of the apostles and older men would your faith in God be complete without devoting yourself to the teachings of the apostles and older men? Acts 2:42
The answer is no, you could not willingly reject the apostles and older men, ultimately not believing them as being hand picked by God through Jesus and still expect your faith in God to be valid.
It should be no different today. The problem is we can't agree on where these brothers are that take the lead (similarly to the apostles and older men) amongst God's sheep today, or if they even exist.
Well, in your ignorance you are thus proven wrong:

Luke 9:49,50

49 And John answered and said,“Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.”

50 And Jesus said unto him,“Forbid him not; for he that is not against us, is for us.”

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
1914 did not see global war! 8 min curtjester1 437
Taking In Human Donor Blood 9 min Thirdwitness 55
The opposition to evolution includes educated p... 15 min Truthsetsfree 70
Answering Marvin Shilmer on What Blood JWs Give... 30 min Thirdwitness 1
Where does Jesus mention life on a paradise ear... 35 min Recovered 37
Found this today about Gods name. 40 min curtjester1 3,173
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael 41 min dee lightful 1,909
Is it true that the Watchtower Society... 1 hr Jace 351
What do you really think of the NWT? 1 hr shell 158
Serena Williams proving Jehovah's Witnesses are... (Aug '12) 4 hr Arkham Bravo 1,895
More from around the web