Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:This is quite incorrect:

Now, the fact is that, whatever else a Christian is, he or she is one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that all who believe in Him are saved. That's not an interpretation or majority opinion, Paul. It's a fact. It's also a fact that JWs do not believe that (about Jesus and salvation). Therefore, they are aberrant.

They do indeed believe that Jesus is the Son of God and all the believe in Him are saved.
That is not the issue.
That they use an incorrect transliteration of YHWH isn't the point either.
That their translation is bias to their theology isn't an issue either ( one can argue that most translations are).
In terms of pure christian salvation theology, they are mainstream ( They believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they he lived and died and was resurrected and will come again).
In those regards they are not aberrant.

Their problem and where they become aberrant is:
The nature of Christ - They believe him to be "a god", not God and they he was the Archangel Michael, that The Word was a created being ( to state just a few issues).
The nature of Christ as our mediator ( He is only mediator for the 144k anointed).
That only the anointed have a hope of being in heaven.
The the Anointed are mediators between mankind and Christ.
That we are to be witnesses to Jehovah and not Christ as commanded in Acts 1.
That we are to abstain from blood transfusions ( as per ACTS and the prohibition from the Jerusalem council).
That the bible was corrupted until it was made correct by them in the mid 1950's.
That the Trinity is a borrowed pagan concept and is not in the bible.
The HS is NO a person but simply an "active force".
I could go on and on and on...

But in regards to the core and most fundamental aspect of what it means to be a Christian:
That Jesus is the Son of God and only those that believe in Him are saved, that He lived, died and was resurrected and will come again.
This they believe 100%.

That is called a hook but they draw you away from these very truth's as you pointed out - only God can save and that would mean Christ's Godhood from the Godhead is fact in order for him to save. Yet, JW's do not believe he is divine but a created being. A created being can't save. So they rewrite the bible to buttress their point of view. Fact is, they take truths from the bible and distort them and twist people to follow a false Jesus. It is not a matter of mere semantics - it is where they take people and whom they point to to follow. JW and cultist follow their leaders or organizations as a sign of following God.

I understand it is popular to reason that some ignorant of JW doctrine can make it to heaven, and in some cases, that maybe, however, those whom I have met that were sucked into the JW maze, after awhile, that ignorance claim is all but erased by the classes, the work, and sleep depo imposed. Just because they say one thing as you mentioned that sounds scriptural does not preclude one from the guilt of error.

If we would like to discuss if it is possible if a cultist who places faith in the cult claims burrowed from the bible as stated, That Jesus is the Son of God and only those that believe in Him are saved, that He lived, died and was resurrected and will come again - can be saved, we should discuss this as this appears where this topic is heading.

Yes, it is possible for this to happen, as the Lord can use any old donkey to speak to anyone, but after awhile, the longer one stays in a cult group the more unlikely that becomes due to the knowledge and agreement factor the person is subjected too. Recall, when Jesus was tempted how apt the devil was in citing scriptures to deceive. That tactic has not changed.

One should also determine if the Jesus they believe in is not in reality has switched over to mean the organization or leader as Jesus's representative, instead of the real Christ. That needs to be discerned too.
-
-
-
PS - in your last post - how do Christdel's twist scripture and infer that serving the organization or group, or group leader means you are serving Christ?

Ana-Baptist, for example, take on an extreme form of Community but they do not stray away from the real Jesus by turning their group into some form of Jesus to be obeyed.

There is a difference.

Jesus said, a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears what?

A Person either has the fruit of the Holy Spirit at work in them or they don't. The Holy Spirit would not deny who Jesus is or teach such denial.

Again, it is possible for a cultist to get saved in a cult, it has happened, and they usually leave the group after awhile too. Is this the issue that you are concerned about Paul?

Well said BW and that, to me, is what truly makes a religion aberrant or not.
It is NOT what their doctrines SAY or agree with, BUT HOW the religion truly works.
A religion cane be virtually orthodox ON PAPER, but how does it really work?
On paper the command to abstain from blood seems to be biblical, until we realize that it has ZERO to do with anything other than the consumption of blood and things strangled as per Levitical Law, it can't be applied to a LIFE SAVING process like a transfusion.
Another example is how the JW's state that salvation is only in Christ BUT the "how" of it is NOT based on Christ but by mediation of the anointed !
Add to that the issue of their denial of Christ's divinity, which means that if only God can save, how can Christ if He is not God ??
They will argue that is because God gave Christ the power to save, but again, HOW? does that work if Christ is not of the same nature as The Father?

Thanks BW for allowing me to get my point into words that I was struggling with for a bit...

IMO, what makes a group aberrant is not simply that they disagree with a few "key" doctrines that are orthodox.
IMO, what makes a group aberrant is when they take salvation out of the hands of Christ and put it somewhere else, when they insert themselves/their beliefs inbetween mankind and Christ and God.

As you all know, I like to keep things simple. I have a simple, yet very effective way to discern aberrant groups. Simply, if they won't allow me to eat bacon, they're aberrant.

Any other issue is secondary.

Sorry. My wife just brought home a Hawaiian pizza. Ham, bacon, pineapple, and extra cheese.
Normally the Hawaiian pizzas I've had, don't have bacon. Imagine my surprise when I bit into the slice and I tasted bacon. I literally thought I had died and gone to heaven.

PaulSacramento wrote:IMO, what makes a group aberrant is not simply that they disagree with a few "key" doctrines that are orthodox.
IMO, what makes a group aberrant is when they take salvation out of the hands of Christ and put it somewhere else, when they insert themselves/their beliefs inbetween mankind and Christ and God.

But what is "tak[ing] salvation out of the hands of Christ and put[ing] it somewhere else" if not "disagree[ment] with a few 'key' doctrines that are orthodox"?

The reason JWs don't allow blood transfusion is because there are aberrant. They deny the gospel, and that leads to all kind of absurd conclusions. I don't care if it's holy underwear or refusal to take life saving medicine. Aberrant religions teach aberrant ideas. That aberrant ideas have a ridiculous impact is not what makes them aberrant!

I'm content to let this go, but I want to emphasize that this is not a circular argument, nor is it an appeal to majority, as you are claiming. Here's the argument:

• 1. Any so-called Christian group that denies the gospel (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing in Him we have life in His name) is aberrant;
  2. Some groups (e.g., JWs, Mormons, Galatian Judaizers (ancient and modern -- for you, Rick ), etc.) deny the gospel;
  3. Therefore, some groups (e.g., JWs, Mormons, Galatian Judaizers) are aberrant.

It is neither circular nor democratic to argue (2). It's written in their own texts. Likewise, it is neither circular nor democratic to argue for (1). It is written in the text of Scripture. That aberrant groups like JWs deny the gospel doesn't change what the written text actually says.

Case in point: you say that the JWs do believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing in Him they have life in His name. But they absolutely do not believe that. They believe that Jesus is a "son" of God. They do not believe He is the Son of God. Moreover, they do not believe that He is the Christ in the sense John makes abundantly clear, since the Christ, for John, is the one who grants eternal life to all who believe in Him. But since, for them, works are necessarly, Jesus does not grant eternal life to all who believe. Therefore, He is not the Johannine Christ.

So with all due respect, it's not about the effects of the religion or even how it works. It is strictly and totally about what they believe. They deny the gospel and they invent other texts (or modify the Bible) to defend their denial. So the only real question is, "What does the Bible says the gospel is?" It's not circular to ask and answer that. And even if the majority of people agree with the answer I propose, it is not an appeal to majority to ask and answer that (it would only be such an appeal if I said, "I know this is the right interpretation because this is what everyone else believes).

Bottom line: you are aberrant if you claim the title "Christian" but deny the gospel. End of story.

Bottom line: you are aberrant if you claim the title "Christian" but deny the gospel. End of story.

And bacon...don't forget the bacon

They believe him to be "a god", not God and they he was the Archangel Michael, that The Word was a created being ( to state just a few issues).

A group can claim faith in Christ all day long, but if they believe in and teach a Christ that is not Scriptural, that He is not also God, that He is not part of a Trinity/One God, if they deny the Resurrection, if they state that He is a CREATED being, then how can they possibly be Christians? I'd say if you don't believe in Jesus as He truly is, from His KEY DEFINITIVE TRAITS and Position (as God) in Scripture, then they are preaching a false Jesus of whom faith in will not save. These false teachings almost always parallel the inverse or corruption of what Scripture says we must do to be saved. Yes, some are Christians that believe the key essential things but also have Jesus-plus beliefs or false understandings of other parts of Scripture - but the key issue is what do they say and believe about Jesus and the stated Salvation ESSENTIALS in Scripture.

The quickest way to see whether a group is a cult or not is to see what they say about Jesus - WHO and WHAT He is and what beliefs they teach about those. And what they teach about what key Scriptures say about what one must do to be saved - as denying these should scream to anyone that they are not Christians but are a cult of deception. And I would agree with Jac, these are things that are clearly set in concrete in Scripture - and they definitely aren't interpretive, as their descriptive language is REDUNDANTLY clear.

RickD wrote:

Bottom line: you are aberrant if you claim the title "Christian" but deny the gospel. End of story.

And bacon...don't forget the bacon

My wife tells me that the avoidance of bacon arose in some religion(s) because Pigs (in some regions) were being fed all sorts of nasty stuff resulting in the cause of diseases in the people of that era. Now, of course, pigs aren't fed like they were hundreds of years ago.

Possibly contradictory to what Jesus said......."What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." (Matt 15:11)

Enjoy the Pizza !

LittleHamster wrote:My wife tells me that the avoidance of bacon arose in some religion(s) because Pigs (in some regions) were being fed all sorts of nasty stuff resulting in the cause of diseases in the people of that era. Now, of course, pigs aren't fed like they were hundreds of years ago.

I like bacon. We even have bacon marmelade here. This proves that my part of the world is more civilized than yours.

FL

A science question, at last:

Why do dogs always stare at me when I'm eating something?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:A science question, at last:

Why do dogs always stare at me when I'm eating something?

FL

Let us have a scientific approach to this. Is it only dogs? What about cats, rabbits, hens...

1over137 wrote:Let us have a scientific approach to this. Is it only dogs? What about cats, rabbits, hens...

I lived on a farm for a while and the chickens didn't stare at me...I don't know about cats and rabbits...but my father's tame wolf did stare at me when I was eating. So it seems that animals of the genus canis will watch a person eat.

I also had a pet budgie a long time ago. She flew freely in my house and would come and eat from my plate.

FL