Disqus - Latest Comments for standingontruth

Re: A Prayer for My Son on His Birthday

Standing on Truth — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:30:35 -0000

Absolutely! And thank you. Happy Birthday to your son!

Re: What to Say to a Jehovah’s Witness

Standing on Truth — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:40:37 -0000

"Should need?"--absolutely! Again, until you read Mr. Rhodes book, you are taking him out of context. He never said we need anything other than our Bibles. So let's talk--you, me and our King James Version, no Watchtower pamphlets or commentary. Are you willing?

Re: What to Say to a Jehovah’s Witness

Standing on Truth — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:38:21 -0000

I didn't decide that. . .God did. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). I guess your issue is with Him ;-).

Re: What to Say to a Jehovah’s Witness

Standing on Truth — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:33:28 -0000

Likewise, we can certainly have a discussion about the "persecution" (as this Wikipedia article you site says of JWs) of Christians around the world quite ruthlessly. Also, if you want to discuss all the ways in which Christians DO stand for others who are persecuted, I will point you to many "fruits," beginning with pro-life issues, for example (representing upwards of 40 million babies killed each year worldwide by abortion). Last I checked, JWs were forbidden to involve themselves in government issues (voting, for example, to try and change legislation) so I'm not sure how much "standing" they are allowed to do these days. It is sad that they are limited by the Watchtower Organization (a sort of government of their own).

Re: Witnessing to the Witnesses, Part Two

Standing on Truth — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:40:05 -0000

Thanks for your respectful comments. I never said the JWs are doing any "harm" to anyone else, at least not in the way I assume you meant it. Leading people away from the saving truth of the gospel and further into darkness is harm, but many of them are doing it unintentionally. God will hold accountable those who are doing it knowing full well what they are doing. And yes, I know my family members (10+ that are JWs) are being brain-washed, and I dismiss the notion that just because "there are many far worse religions" out there, I should just relax about it. My family members are in darkness and their eternal destiny is very much in question--I find no comfort in that, even if there are worse religions out there they could be tied up in. There is only one way to heaven. There is not many--as in some being "better" or "worse" than others. We do no favors to anyone when we deny that--and it's not our narrow-mindedness, as the media portrays, it's God's truth. He set the rules, not us. It is His love for us that tells us that truth from the start, so we don't spend a lifetime searching for the many ways to God when there is only one. I will not rest from the privilege of praying for my family's, and others, salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Thanks for your comments and you too have a great day!

Re: Witnessing to the Witnesses, Eighth and Final Part

Standing on Truth — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:23:36 -0000

I am humbled by the comment, but can't help but think you must be talking about someone else :-). I can only say I am a work in progress. . .and some days I feel like an inspiration to no one, but thank you.

Re: Witnessing to the Witnesses, Part Four

Standing on Truth — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:35:00 -0000

Hi Sean, Thank you for your comment, and I especially thank you for your respectful tone. I haven't had much of that in response to my blogs on Jehovah's Witnesses. I hope you know that my tone here is respectful as I respond, because I want to reciprocate. I honestly wouldn't expect you to find my Part Four to be objective. I know well the Watchtower teaches JWs to be skeptical, and to outright shun dissenting material. Since you are a Jehovah's Witness, I fully expect for you to say the things you've said and try to discredit what I've researched, but let me assure you, I have not spent "4 months of web surfing to acquire misinformation," as you say. I have pamphlet after pamphlet from the Watchtower given to me by Jehovah's Witnesses--I have the Watchtowers OWN material sitting here with me as I formulate my articles, pulling from their articles word for word, therefore it’s in context. When you say "if the readers of the Bible do not benefit from explanatory comment, why are you writing a blog" I say this: Again, I do not expect Jehovah's Witnesses to be okay with what I am saying, not initially at least. I hope and pray something works on their spirit and plants a seed, but primarily I'm writing to help born-again Christians understand JWs theology for the purpose of witnessing to them (not to be a scholar and commentary on everything in my King James Version of the Bible). If it helps open the eyes of JWs, than praise God, but I am not writing these blogs under the notion that you and I, of different faiths, will look at our different Bible translations and come to the same conclusions. As for consulting the Watchtower website directly, I spent some time there and I found the information there to be quite misleading and incomplete based on what the Watchtower’s own print material says. But again, if I am using Watchtower pamphlets and the Watchtower in their own words, will you honestly try to refute what I’m saying in THEIR words simply because I don’t site their website as well? If I am wrong in any of this theology—JWs loyalty to a single earthly organization or salvation by works as explained in my blog—please let me know. My email address is here on the blog: standingontruth@gmail.com

Re: Witnessing to the Witnesses, Part Two

Standing on Truth — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:31:31 -0000

I'm not sure why there needs to be such anger and a condescending attitude. . .if you are secure in your religion, there should just be a confident, respectful debate of the theology. I don't sense that here. Your comments are all over the map and seem quite angry. Nothing in my blog was a personal attack. My goal is to defend Truth and stand for it at all costs, and yes, I'd be happy to go through the original Greek with you--I have them right here--but know that I am aware and have seen how the JW theology distorts Scripture even from that original Greek text. Just because the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society claims the NWT is "most accurate" does not make it the gospel truth, pun intended.

Also, I'm not quoting "paraphrased" Bibles in my blog--I used the King James Version--the same version that as I understand it, JW's used until your NWT came out. Were the JW's wrong to use the KJV???

Re: What to Say to a Jehovah’s Witness

Standing on Truth — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:35:14 -0000

Yes, I would be happy to. Is this email address I see for you a working email? I can reply to that email if you don't mind.

Re: What to Say to a Jehovah’s Witness

Standing on Truth — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:43:46 -0000

Please re-read my comment. . .I said I studied "the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses" for several months. I have studied the Bible for 30 years.

And again, if anyone would like to get into the beliefs of each of our relationships with God on a deeper level, I am absolutely open to that. Feel free to email me. I don't believe that anything I have written here has been inaccurate or lacking in "true understanding." I understand that the Bible and the Lord is all about grace. That is lacking in JW theology, a works-based religion.

And you are correct, prayer does help, and with everything that is in me, I do pray for those that are lost.

Re: What to Say to a Jehovah’s Witness

Standing on Truth — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:35:06 -0000

Mr. Rhodes absolutely does use the Bible to back up his positions, but to imply that there is nothing good about books other than the Bible (which is what I hear you saying) is inaccurate in my opinion. Of course, the Bible is the absolute truth and authority, but the problem with the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they do not use the Bible as their absolute and only authority, they have to submit to the Watch Tower Society, which, by the way, they also get supplemental materials at a cost! (So I'm confused as to why books and materials that cost a modest amount of money seem to be such an issue to my recent readers when JW materials cost money as well.)

Mr. Rhodes has simply written a book to try and help those who have already been "helped personally" by the truth of God's World but are trying to help their loved ones who are deceived find the truth. Those are 2 separate audiences that you are mixing. And it makes it more difficult when we are both using 2 different Bibles, each of which the other believes is a distortion of God's true Word. And again, if money is an issue for anyone, I will send any serious seeker a Bible, or for that matter, Mr. Rhodes book, for free.

Thank you for your comments.

Re: What to Say to a Jehovah’s Witness

Standing on Truth — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:33:23 -0000

Daniel, I have studied the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses quite significantly for many consecutive months, but I did so as a long-time born again Christian with the help of the Holy Spirit's discernment and I did so in order to know exactly what my loved ones were believing so fervently. Have you ever studied the beliefs of Christianity--a personal relationship with Christ that is based on grace and not works; based on the sanctifying work of Christ on the cross which he did because of mankind's depravity? Would you be interested in hearing those basic beliefs or does The Watch Tower Society prohibit you from hearing about other beliefs?

I do understand that Witnesses give away millions of Bibles at no cost to the receiver, but I have to point out something that, to me, is a sad distortion from The Watch Tower Society (no fault of your own)--first of all, those Bibles all come from ONE headquarter location for which you have to pay for them, correct (from which WTS must profit quite substantially)? Also, you HAVE to distribute those and your chances of getting into heaven are based on the number of bibles and literature that you hand out (works-based salvation rather than the peaceful assurance of salvation through GOD'S work, not our own). It's hard for me to hear that. My heart breaks for those Witnesses out there that are being deceived while others profit.

Jesus clearly says that "by grace through faith" is how we are saved (Ephesians 2:8,9 KJV).

I would be happy to continue this discussion on email. Would you be willing to do that? If so, email me at standingontruth@gmail.com. In the meantime, I will pray for you by name, that God will open your eyes to His Truth and that you will allow me to send you some things in love, which is the be the mark of a Christian.

Standing

Re: What to Say to a Jehovah’s Witness

Standing on Truth — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:15:14 -0000

Daniel,
You are assuming that the Jehovah's Witnesses will teach you the Bible. . .they are teaching the New World Translation which is a distortion of God's revealed Word in many ways. Secondly, isn't $8 to $10 worth spending if it can save a loved one from earthly (and eternal) peril? Lastly, I would be happy to send any serious seeker a free bible. . .the true version of God's Truth at no cost if money is an issue. I pray for those deceived to find salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.

Re: Health Care Reform. . .It’s Getting Really Serious

Standing on Truth — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:08:35 -0000

I'm sorry you feel that way and see things that way. I obviously disagree. I find it interesting your phrase "if you cared about life" given that Obama's plans include paying for abortions.

Re: Partial-Birth Abortion: Sounds “worse than it is”?

Standing on Truth — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:24:49 -0000

Although I had to delete your last line (what I don't understand is why disagreeing has to be so hateful and so personal--I cannot condone that kind of language in what is to be a civil and Christ-centered debate on this site), I decided to post your comment even though I disagree.

I ask you, just what percentage of Tiller's abortions were for tragic situations like you describe? And how is "tragic" defined? There is overwhelming evidence that it was a very small percentage. You have to remember that abortion is, in part, a business. . .meaning, to make money. As tragic as those circumstances of babies with deformities and life-threatening issues are, I am not willing to play God and I disagree that they were "catastrophically failed attempts at new life"--if the attempt at new life had failed, what was Tiller "needed" for in your opinion? Those are lives just the same and you are dabbling in something dangerous when you say you know where to draw the line between what is a worthwhile life and what is not. Only God has that role.

I invite you to look into the facts about the business side of abortion and understand that as a pro-life advocate, I can very much sympathize with women and families who are in the situation above, but also recognize that it is a very small part of abortion and I am not willing to throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. And as for myself, I do care (contrary to your uninformed comments) for those women in desperate situations like that--and I back up my care and concern with my time and money.

Just a few sites that give you another side of the story:
http://www.lifesitenews.com...
http://www.abortiontv.com/M...
http://www.montfort.org.br/...

Re: Palin Bad for Dialogue

Standing on Truth — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:32:04 -0000

I agree with Paul and in a respectful way, yes, we need to let people know that there are "dirty little secrets" in this health care bill and it is very dangerous for this country and generations to come. The pattern seems to be that when the truth is pointed out, it is demonized, along with the people who pointed it out.

Re: Partial-Birth Abortion: Sounds “worse than it is”?

Standing on Truth — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:52:16 -0000

Thank you for visiting me and for your support and encouragement. I really appreciate it!

Re: If People Really Knew the Truth About Abortion

Standing on Truth — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:37:35 -0000

My heart goes out to you and the situation you were in here. I won't even pretend to know what that was like--I can hear your raw emotion about how difficult that was here in these comments.

Let me first say that, in my opinion, what you and your wife went through qualifies as endangering the "health" and "life" of the mother, and I would suspect that you also are infuriated that many abortions become about what is "convenient" disguised as "health,"--given that your wife has been in a real life threatening situation. When you look at statistics for abortion, there is a huge difference between what you all experienced and pregnancies terminated for no true-health risk to the mother or baby. I would be elated if Roe v. Wade could be overtuned, even if there was an exception for a situation like yours--a true life-threatening emergency, because I know that to be a small percentage of the overall millions of abortions.

I also want to say a quick comment about your use of the word "meddle." I understand your visceral reactions and that this is very fresh on your heart and mind, and because of that it would seem that politicians, as you say, would be meddling in your business. But I have to ask, if an intruder in your home was threatening the life of your wife or your daughter, wouldn't you want the police to step in and protect you, and God forbid, if that intruder injured one of them, wouldn't you want the politicians to make sure the law dealt with that intruder? We have to protect life, whether it is a 3 month old life in the womb or a 76 year old life, and Roe v. Wade drops the ball in a big way in protecting life. I am one of the biggest opponents of government intervention in our lives, but that doesn't mean I am against police officers protecting my life when I need it, for example. That's all I am asking for when it comes to these babies, and again, if I were a politician with legislation before me to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it had an exception in there for the true health-emergencies like you and your wife experienced, I would sign it in a heartbeat, because I will not throw out the baby with the bathwater (excuse the cliche). I'd rather see an end to the largest majority of abortions and then let the true health-emergencies be decided by the mother and father involved, then through out all attempts at overturning Roe v. Wade because of a small percentage of cases.

Does that make sense? I appreciate your comments (which please understand I had to edit the profanity, not because I don't understand your strong emotion, but because of my audience--be assured I didn't edit any of your context). Even if we are on different sides of the political debate ultimately, I hear your heart and do not condemn you in the slightest for the choice you and your wife made. As I said earlier, if there was a chance at ending abortion except for cases like your wife's, I would be at the front of that line with my support.

Thanks again.

Re: What We See

Standing on Truth — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:13:15 -0000

Absolutely! Well said. Hard to do, but valuable advice.

Re: A Prayer for My Son on His Birthday

Standing on Truth — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:58:45 -0000

Thank you for your sweet words! I feel very blessed to have my son and to be given the privilege by God to pray for him.

Re: A Tribute to President George W. Bush

Standing on Truth — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:56:35 -0000

Very well said, thank you. What is disheartening to me this week in particular is the statement that President Obama made about us no longer being a Christian nation (which you either intentionally or unintentionally alluded to in your comments). I join you in prayer--prayer is one of the best things we can be doing in the face of such a growing denial of the one true God.

Re: Sleight of Hand

Standing on Truth — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:36:52 -0000

Snopes.com does not show it to be a hoax, and of course you would only see this quote on right-wing sites. . .liberals want nothing to do with this truth being exposed. On your own site where you try to refute the quote, you yourself say you are only "fairly certain" it's a fabrication. I appreciate you challenging things you read--I think that makes for quite a discerning person--but for now, until proven otherwise, I'm sticking with the quote that I've heard from multiple sources. The content of the quote makes perfect sense and is quite evident lately, regardless of who penned it.