Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,532 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 492,471
Pageviews Today: 642,169Threads Today: 196Posts Today: 2,669
05:41 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject JW Apologist vs Christian Debate - Search for The Truth
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
JW's are right on somethings and wrong on others. They are right that they get into the Bible and actually teach their members, where churches don't anymore. I never learned anything sitting in a church pew. I learned alot as a JW for 7 years.

But, Jesus is not Michael the archangel. The Trinity is true, our soul does live on after the body dies, the whole 1914 thing is ridiculous, and they are not the only ones who are Gods people.

Those reasons, among other things, is why I left the group.

However, I do consider them christians, even tho they do not consider me a christian.

hf
 Quoting: Lisa*Lisa


Lisa lisa, About the time I was 'studying' and we talked about 1914, I happened to go to NYC and to the Met Museum and they had a special exhibit about 'modernity' in design of clothes, and design of everything I guess. I was so struck by the visual evidence of 1914-15 really having been a turning point in human history. [And in the regular art collection I saw a painting, "Judith and Holofernes". Reading the caption describing this "Bible" story, I was convinced this couldn't be from the Bible, because it wasn't consistent with the "master's voice" I felt I had learned to know from my brief studies.- It's part of the Apocrypha, I'm sure you know.]

Another thing about '1914' was the repeated showings of "Upstairs, Downstairs" series I'd watched. The one takeaway,if you had to pick just one, would clearly be: in 1914 everything began to change and change massively.

I've even wondered if "Downton Abbey", the new "upstairs,downstairs" had to be created to muddy that message. Though from what I've seen of it, it's not yet obvious whether this is the case or not. [ I've noticed that if a popular movie or show, etc. contains 'too much truth', there will have to be a substitute with nearly the same name or something, lest the people derive some sustenance or a foothold in truth instead of the steady poison. example the perfectly odious and stupid "vicky christina barcelona", had to replace "barcelona".
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:







GLP