had a jevohah's witness around this morning. kept her busy for a good long while. she was unable to answer quite basic moral questions about genesis. :
i tried to convert her to gnosticism but this didn't work and she said that satan had done well with me. at this point i closed the door. the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster will have to wait until another opportunity.Tags: religion
i did bring up the good old mixed-fabrics bit : i need to memorise the chapter and line numbers of that. there's what i consider a perfectly good answer to this in mainstream christianity, which is to note that jesus brought a new covenant. (mind, I don't quite understand what criteria is used to determine which bits of the old covenant lurk around.) similarly i would have taken "it was all part of god's unknowable plan" as an answer for "why hold someone morally responsible for an action [eating an apple] when they did not yet have knowledge of good and evil and understand morality".
|Date:||March 9th, 2007 01:04 pm (UTC)|| |
From the JW website
"That rebellious angel came to be known as "the original serpent." (Revelation 12:9; 2 Corinthians 11:3) He is also named Satan, meaning "Opposer," and Devil, meaning "Slanderer." He called into issue the rightness and righteousness of Jehovah's rulership of earth, and he challenged God that now he, Satan, could turn all mankind aside from true worship. God has allowed Satan some 6,000 years to attempt to prove his challenge, so that the issue over Jehovah's sovereignty might be settled for all eternity. Man-rule independent of God has failed miserably. But men and women of faith, among whom Jesus is the outstanding example, have kept integrity to God under the severest trials, vindicating Jehovah and proving the Devil a liar.
So all suffering is due to a bet of vanity between God and Satan.
Person was ex-Roman Catholic lady, probably around the age of 50, who had a strong Italian accent, and spoke far too fast for me to understand at times. I was in my pyjamas. :) Poor thing, she wasn't very technical about theology - she probably wouldn't know what "ineffable" means. She kept giving me random rambling anecdote-like analogies which i could not understand a word of, rather than answering my questions.
She really wasn't impressed by me claiming that the God in the first part is the demiurge, and claiming this is a different person to the god of the second part.
Think next time I will pretend to be an Anglican.
I had them by the other day. Told them I was being treated for mental illness, having a break down, it wasn't a good time, and the voices in my head said their tie was on wrong, and the dude still stood there and gabbed on, this was, mind, at 9pm on a work night, so I am there with hair everywhere, PJs on, and holding back a barking mad dog.
Stig's friends stick nails through their noses. I normally ask if "my life partner can come too" and what they think of lesbians in general, and they leave.