Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?

You need to read what I wrote again, perhaps slower this time [please stop manipulating my points]. Who's to say [and where did I say] there's not other sources of inner peace? First and foremost, primary inner peace would be associated with things involving our survival [life itself comes first], and the survival of others who we cared for.

quote:

---

People don't just give up hope and live out miserable lives because they don't believe in an afterlife.

---

Who the heck said that? Please don't put words in my mouth. Jews were killed because of their heritage. We're not analyzing whether or not we think a particular group had inner peace. I'm speaking of a demonstration as a whole, of that peace. You're trying to compare apples with oranges. We can speculate all we want with regards to the Jews, as well as any other religious or idealistic group on the face of the earth.Besides, as I already stated, the acts of other groups--even if they do exist--don't take away from the acts of JW's [and the ultimate assertion of their high level of inner peace]. That wouldn't be very fair, would it? Evidence comes in many forms and manifestations. If people could only speak of absolute evidence, life would be amazingly boring. Actually, that's wrong. Please re-read my post to see what he has proven. If what you're trying to say is that he can't prove his ultimate goal, then yes I agree with you. But if you're suggesting he hasn'tA) Demonstrated that those with a hope have more peace than those withoutB)Demonstrated that JW's have an extremely high level of inner peace, whether or not it's the highestThose are two concrete points that can't be broken. The rest is less concrete, and if wmscott wishes to continue on his quest, the more power to him.The fact that people argue points that by their nature can't be argued[just to argue it seems], demonstrates the relentlessness of some of these posters. To even state anything on these forums that's merely a "convincing point," other than a "cold hard fact," seems to be a sin, although it shouldn't be. And if posters are attempting to derail concrete points such as mine, it truly makes me pity those who hazard to go beyond the "facts." This shouldn't be the way we conduct ourselves.I truly am shocked.This message has been edited by Watson75, 08-04-2005 09:29 PM

Hi Watson75, Assuming that you mean a person with hope would have a higher level of peace than one without it, no, I have not seen this demonstrated. And those religious denominations who have a certainty rather than hope, wouldn’t they have even more inner peace? Where has a link between ‘levels of inner peace and resolve on the face of death been established? And who instituted tests and pass marks for religions? My understanding was and is that personal growth and maturity is. . . personal! It seems you are easily impressed. And you replied, after restating your ‘‘unbreakable points: So, if points are unbreakable, why wouldn’t there be cold, hard facts to support them? Otherwise, they are breakable.And you share wmscott’s tendency to attribute motive just to argue, it seems Yet, in message 139, you say It’s difficult to see you in that way, I must admit. However, I will commend you on restraining your shock when wmscott repeatedly responded to things I hadn’t written!

Before I proceed -Is it agreed that one of the central "evidences" is how the JWs behaved in Nazi germany (so we are saying 1930s-end of war)?If I can demonstrate that they did, in fact, not behave (as a group*) as claimed then we can dismiss that element of the claim?(BTW - as Watson seems to have failed in his objective, don't be surprised if someone else turns up, only posts on this thread and is equally "gosh you are so right!")This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Aug-2005 04:29 AM

Am I the only one who noticed that Watson75 has made exactly 8 posts....all in this thread? And that his arguments sound strikingly similar to wcscott's?Not making any accusations or anything. It just smells fishy to me.

Not at all - I wouldn't go at far to say that they are the same person but I'd be very surprised if they are not working together behind the scenes, it's typical cult behaviour.Like I said, the next trick is generally for someone else to appear and, also claiming to be netural (or even better an atheist), then be slowly convinced of the argument presented. This is intended to unsettle us in our viewpoints and to make us more receptive to the ideas presented. The next stage is to invite us to email them off site for more "detailed" conversations. This is where the real hard sell begins.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Aug-2005 11:36 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Aug-2005 11:37 AM

I disagree. Please provide evidence that inner peace always comes "primarily" with survival. You implied it, by stating basically that people with no "hope of an afterlife" could not have much inner peace compared to those who do. Neither you nor wcscott have proven this, however. Oh, so now you are speaking of a demonstration as a whole? I thought that was wcscott's thing. Oh well. I dispute using groups for measuring inner peace. Individuals have inner peace, not groups. For the rest...I never said Jews possessing inner peace in the camps would "take away" from the acts of the Wintesses. It would, however, disprove your and wcscott's assertion.You have the cards stacked - if nobody else has been "tested" in the way the Witnesses were in WW2, then how can we possibly say that they were better than everyone else in that situation?! This isn't "life." This is a debate forum. Debates require evidence to back up assertions, not idle speculation and arguing from incredulity. He has not demonstrated that those with hope of an afterlife have more peace. He simply stated it. There is a difference.He has also demonstrated that JWs CAN have a high level of peace - not that they all do, or that they are exclusive in this, or that they are any different from anyone else in this regard. Personally, I think if you're going to insult a large group of people (like say, everyone who isn't a JW), you had better have facts to back up such a bigotted claim.And of course we "argue just to argue!" This is a freaking debate forum! We come here to debate and argue!

Dear Robinrohan; Inner peace is a feeling of contentment, of being at peace with one's self, not having an internal conflict. It is the feeling you sometimes feel when seeing a beautiful sunset, hiking in the woods or working in the garden. A sense of calm. That is the basic simple and temporary sensation of inner peace.Then there is the inner peace of living in harmony with your moral principles, being true to yourself, by not doing anything you know you shouldn't and being content with what you have. A inner peace of acceptance and principle, moral atheists who have come to terms with death, can have this kind of inner peace.Then there is the inner peace living by moral standards, being content with what you have and also having hope and trust in God. This kind of inner peace is stronger and holds up better in the face of problems since it is based on hope. People who have a firm faith in God have this kind of inner peace.And then there is the "peace from God" which is a fruitage of the holy spirit. This is a gift from God through Christ to those who worship God in Truth. I believe that I have this kind of inner peace and it is different from the other kinds which I have also experienced. The seeing a nice sunset kind, gives you a brief euphoric sense of joy and well being, but doesn't last long or hold up well in difficult situations. The moral type inner peace lasts, but without hope, has problems in hard times but does help. While the peace from God is different, it is like you are this other person who is so calm, you have this great sense of peace and confidence, but it is not from yourself. It is not something you do for yourself, like if you do something bad, you can lose it and the only way to get it back is to repent and pray, and in time it then returns. With so many things you really don't know what you have until you lose it, and having lost it a few times, I can tell you the difference is like night and day, it is like losing your heat shield. With the peace from God, you feel like you are inside a snowball that that doesn't melt in a blast furnace, if you lose it, it melts. I find myself surrounded in the world by people who have little if any inner peace, they have so many problems and so little hope, while I am this little spot of calmness and hope. Sort of like 'worry insulation' it keeps you from getting overly troubled by things, it helps you deal with problems and carries you through hard times. There is such a feeling of completeness with having the peace of God, it is like I am what I should be, I feel content and whole and able to deal with things. I having the feeling that we were made to have this peace from God, that without it, it is like we are missing a key part of what we are meant to be to. Without this key component, we have trouble functioning and operate at a reduced capacity, which is why without it we have problems coping with things. I can't image living without it, life would be so overwhelming and pointless if I didn't have it. I wish everyone had it, the world would be a much better place if they did.I hope that answered your question, but words fall far short of experiencing it first hand.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Rahvin; No it did not, my assertion was and is that as a group only Jehovah's Witnesses have the 'peace from God' which is an added point that did not alter my open argument that atheists do not have an inner peace based on hope as those who believe in God do. I disagree, it is a basic scientific principle to use large study groups to avoid the inherit errors of using a small sample size. To base it a sample of one, can result in results that say far more about that individual than anything you are trying to study.I wish a could say that a single Witness who didn't have the peace from God was an aberration, but I am sure that there are those who don't, which is why I am always talking about groups. I single persons faults or strengths are not necessarily indicative of the rest of the group as a whole. Which is why I don't like to use examples of one person, it tells us a lot about them, but not always of the group to which they belong, unless most of the group manifests the same behavior. If was a few examples, and as I said it said more about them than any group to which they may have belonged. Personal courage is personal, and the very reason many of those people may of had the courage to act as they did was a deep faith in God. It is less likely that they would have risked their lives if they were atheists, a theist risks only the life that is now, while an atheist risks everything. They did what they did because of their person moral conviction, and they unfortunately were a minority of what ever group they belonged to, so the group as a whole failed to display what the noble individuals did. Plus risk taking is minor compared to what Jehovah's Witnesses endured in the concentration camps, if risk taking was all the Witnesses had to do in WWII, I would not have much of an argument for their having the peace from God. So while the actions of the individuals was extremely commendable, it was not anywhere on the level of what the Witnesses had to endure and doesn't indicate the same high level of inner peace being displayed, and I have no problem with Christians who are not Jehovah's Witnesses displaying strong inner peace based on faith in God. I am just say that God only gives his peace to those who worship him in Truth, which is pretty much restricted to Jehovah's Witnesses and any individuals God see fit to grant his peace to. Without proving your point in detail, you are making nothing but an empty accusation of no value. It doesn't matter what any religion said, what counts is what the Bible said, and the Bible backs up Jehovah's Witnesses on every point. As I have said before, I would be happy to prove it to you. Even it you don't believe in the Word of God, it is the what decides the matter for Christians. Incorrect, I believe a posted a number of reasons, I don't recall specifically to whom the posts were addressed. Review them if you wish, but the topic is the Bible the Word of God, is a topic all by itself. It has been proven many times, atheists merely reject the proof if they are aware of the evidence. It is a large topic by itself, and you wouldn't accept it anyway, so I will save it for another time. Incorrect, Jehovah's Witnesses did hide Jews in WWII. Once again you are referring to individuals rather an a group and I have no problem with individuals displaying great inner peace. I have no problem if the majority of some religion displayed inner peace based on belief in God. My point is that atheists don't have a hope based inner peace, and my second point is that out of all christian groups, Jehovah's Witnesses are the only group in line to receive the peace of God inner peace. I high lighted where you are making your mistake. Where as you believe something, we can prove it scripturally. As for interpretation, the Bible interprets itself, in that one scripture is explained by another. A wrong interpretation will be in conflict with other scriptures while the correct interpretation will fit perfectly. Here take for example that some religions call their leaders "father" and read what Jesus said on the matter. (Matthew 23:9-12) "Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called 'leaders,' for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ. But the greatest one among YOU must be YOUR minister. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" Jesus specifically forbid his followers from using the title "father" for those who would take the lead. What interpretation is required? Jesus forbid it, and some religions chose to ignore Jesus words and do it any way. This is an easy one, a direct command by Jesus, a one shot hit that disproves a false doctrine. Of course those who follow that doctrine have a lengthily excuse to justify themselves, but they are in conflict with what Jesus said, and it is that simple. It is the same way with everything we believe, sometimes we have to use more than one scripture to show the point, but just as logical. This is what we do when we study with people, we take them into the Bible and show them a systematical scriptural proof, each logical point directly proven by scriptures and each point fitting into the next point, forming what the Bible is teaching and what we believe in. Basically, you take the Bible and add holy spirit and you have Jehovah's Witnesses.All these lengthy posts and I am basically only arguing two main points, one that inner peace based on hope is superior to one without hope, and two that Jehovah's Witnesses are the only religion that really follows what the Bible said and hence are the only religion in line to receive the peace of God.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Watson75;I think you need to step forward and answer one simple question."Watson 75, are you or are you not, a baptised member of Jehovah's Witnesses?"A simple yes or no will, do.I have really enjoyed your posts and your support, but if you are in the truth, say so. From the way your first post was written, I took it that you were merely aware of Jehovah's Witnesses and happened to agree with us on some points, I don't know if that was your intent, but it would have been a bit deceptive if you are in the truth were trying to make it a appear that you were not. So I think it would be for the best if you would answer my above question and let us know were you stand. If you don't want to post your answer, please at least e-mail it to me? I would really like to know.Sincerely Your; Wm Scott Anderson

quote:

---

Incorrect, Jehovah's Witnesses did hide Jews in WWII

---

I'm sure some did, maybe you could fill us in - What was the stated position of your cult towards the Jews when they published the 1934 yearbook?Who was Erich Frost? What was his stance during the war? What would you say about his level of inner-peace?

wmscott: This post is about "inner peace" and not about Jehovahs Witnesses per se. Even IF Watson 75 is not a JW, He may well have inner peace...or not. Where are we going with this topic, here?

Of course it does. It changes everything. Suddenly one of the assumptions required for your argument (that JWs have true peace, and no one else does) is faulty - and if it is proven to be flase, the rest of your argument falls down. If you would like to proceed with the original topic (which seems to be more along the lines of "what do atheists have that replaces faith as a source of inner peace") then we can certainly do that.In fact, judging by a recent mod post, we may want to do exactly that. Both true and false. The problem is when you start using words like "only" and "all." If you say that "only" JWs have true inner peace, all it takes is a single case to prove that statement wrong. Besides that, we are talking about an incredibly subjective topic that relies entirely upon an individual's moral fortitude. Making broad generalizations is faulty regarding such an individualized topic. And yet even large numbers of people from "other groups" can tell us nothing about the group itself, if the question regards something as personal and individual as faith. Or do you propose that God does NOT seek personal relationships with people, and instead seeks relationships only with groups?That should be irrelevant in any case, though. To say that True Peace comes only from God requires you to PROVE conclusively that God even exists - an impossibility. You continue to stack the deck. We have no "group" to choose from that faced the exact conditions that the Witnesses did in the camps. No one else was thrown in exclusively based on religion with the option of getting out if they simply renounced their faith. We have nothing to compare it to.But if you insist on using the "group" thing, then let's just use another group: Non-Jehovah's Witnesses. Suddenly I have a bunch of examples of non-witnesses who triumphed over adversity and posessed great moral fortitude and courage. Without being Witnesses. As a "group." It's a self evident fact! Are you a simpleton?! Okay, I'll spell out just one example for you. No other Christian faith that I am aware of has banned the practice of blood transfusions. ONLY Witnesses have pulled that interpretation out of the Bible. Therefore, every other Christian denomination disagrees with the Witnesses. SOme on more points than others, but this example is adequate.As to which interpretation is correct is a matter of faith.You believe your interpretatyion to be correct. I disagree, and because of my faith, you cannot convince or show me otherwise.Oh, and I AM a Christian. And the Bible is NOT what decides the matter for me. It's just a book that can point the way, to me. Nothing more. The Bible cannot prove itself. If I write a book that says "Everything in this book is true," and then write a story about how the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Earth in 3 hours, would you believe it? I wouldn't. It's just a book. But it claims to be true in much he same way the Bible does. If a book cannot prove itself without outside confirmation, the Bible cannot be taken literally.Don't even know why I wrote that - you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up. I belive in God. His existance cannot be proven. People have tried over and over. It's a matter of faith and belief - not evidence. And please - show me where His existance has been proven. I'd really love to read that one. If so, please PROVE it. Exclude your second point and the mods may become happier with this thread.In any case, you are moving the goalposts around again. Which one are we talking about here? Seperate topics should have seperate threads. We've been talking for over 10 pages about JWs supposedly being the only group that posesses inner peace.If that's not the topic, why'd you add it? Scriptural proof is only valid if someone believes the Bible to be literal truth. I don't. You can prove no such thing to me. All based on faith, every last word. Not a shred of provable fact, wmscott. I'd like to officially ask you to take your conversion attempts elsewhere, as this is not an apporpriate place for telling everyone else that their religion is wrong. If you want to try to convert people, stick to the typical door-to-door tactics Witnesses have used for years. Don't try to sneak it in to a debate. Again, exclude your second point and the Mods will be much happier. It's based entirely on faith, anyway.As to your first point, which was the original title of this thread - please, by all menas, post your real argument now along with supporting facts. 160-some messages and we're back to this.To the admins - I'd like to request some attention be given to wmscott's religious preaching and inflammatory remarks. His primary purpose seems to be conversion, not debate. If I'm out of line in this, by all means say so, but I'd like to see an admin make an official call on the matter.

Dear Charles Knight; Would you please not use the term cult, I find it offenisve. Our stated posistion on this matter is given at this link. http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1998/7/8/article_01.htm Jehovah's Witnesses Courageous in the Face of Nazi Peril Erich Frost, born December 22, 1900 - died October 30, 1987, in 1936 was in charge of the underground preaching work in Germany for 8 months and was then arrested and sent to a concentration camp. There are many reports on the web that when he was arrested, he revealed the names of the other leaders in the underground work in exchange for better treatment. Considering that his supposed "better treatment" was nine years in a concentration camp, it doesn't seem very believable. It is more probable that since he was taking the lead in Germany at the time of his arrest, and it was and is standard practice to tell a prisoner that "everybody else talked, we only need you to confirm what they said.", that the report was faked at the time to make it appear that Erich Frost had compromised with the Nazi's to save his own skin. Such a report would have been very useful to show to other Witnesses, "Here look your leader himself told us what we needed to know, why shouldn't you?" and it also served another purpose, one of division. The Nazis were unable to stamp out Jehovah's Witnesses, so they would have wanted to sow seeds of dissent and division among them, making it look like their leader was a traitor would have been an effective tactic. So the documents that came to light after Erich Frost's death with the fall of East Germany, are probably old Nazi propaganda used by the East German police in their then on going attempts to suppress the activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country. It is sad that this old Nazi lie is believed by so many today, and didn't come out until after Erich Frost had died and wasn't around to refute it.Even allowing for the possibility that Erich Frost did compromise with the Nazis, makes no difference any way, since I am speaking of Jehovah's Witnesses as a group, it is to be expected that individuals will fail. As for Erich Frost's inner peace, if he did compromise with the Nazis, he apparently was able to make peace with God and himself, for after the war he once again led the preaching work in Germany for many years. While in the concentration camps he wrote the song "Forward, You Witnesses!" which is a stirring march type song about faithfully serving God, hardly the song you would expect a traitor to write. Erich Frost spent 9 years in the concentration camps, if he had compromised to receive better treatment, why didn't he simply sign the form renouncing his faith and he could have been a free man. No one is perfect so we all make mistakes that we later regret, but it doesn't seem likely that Erich Frost compromised with the Nazis, such an act would have been in complete conflict with the way he lived his whole life. Read his life story for yourself and see what I mean, he told it in the 1961 Watchtower in the April15th edition on p. 24, "Deliverance from Totalitarian Inquisition Through Faith in God". I can't post it since it is copywrite protected and is not on the web, but I could send to you in an e-mail if you wanted to read for yourself.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Adminphat;Watson75 has posted posts basically supporting my argument on inner peace, which is great, but some have accused him of being in league with me. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I wish to find out if Watson75 is in agreement with me because he believes the same things I do, or if he simply agrees with my argument on inner peace because he can see the reasoning behind my thinking.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Rahvin; It is called the "Bible" and it proves God's existence by recording the historical fulfillment of prophecies given by God. To accurately predict the future beyond mere guess work, requires a supernatural being, a record of such prophecies being made and their fulfillment is conclusive proof of God's existence. Now since you have a problem accepting the word of God as being inspired, you need only to look at prophecies recorded in the Bible that we see being fulfilled in our day or that have been fulfilled in history long after when the prophecies were written. If you were willing to accept the Bible as the word of God, I could prove it to you, but as you say, I can't convince you of anything by referring to the Bible because of your "faith" or rather your lack of faith in God's Word.Just because an interpretation is unique, doesn't mean that it is wrong. An interpretation is proved right or wrong by whether or not it agrees with scripture. On the blood issue for instance, our stand is Biblically correct, all you have to do read the account in Acts to know that,(Acts 15:29 "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood") but no other religion is willing to take this stand for what is right. Even if you ignore the transfusion issue and just consider the issue of eating blood, which is what the scripture is specifically prohibiting while transfusing blood is a logical deduction since if you can't eat it, you can't transfuse it, most if all Christian religions fail to keep this direct command. Even religious leaders like Martin Luther (: "Now if we want to have a church that conforms to this council, . . . we must teach and insist that henceforth no prince, lord, burgher, or peasant eat geese, doe, stag, or pork cooked in blood . . . And burghers and peasants must abstain especially from red sausage and blood sausage.") have recognized this command as binding on Christians, but have failed to do anything about it. The problem is that when the Bible points in an inconvenient direction, most ignore it. I do have to give the Eastern Church, credit since they observe the command not to eat blood while the Catholic church only observed it until the 12th century. It is part of a larger pattern or trend seen in Christendom, that of over time they have softened their doctrinal position to allow things that God doesn't prove of, like the recent stampede by Christendom to embrace homosexuals despite that the Bible calls it "obscene" (Romans 1:27). Church doctrines today are more based on political correctness or convenience than God's Word, which is why Jehovah's Witnesses are unfortunately alone in closely following scripture. "She had been saved by a family of Jehovah's Witnesses, he said, and hidden away from the Nazis for two years."
http://zephyr.unr.edu/.../fall_02_pages/fredrickson_hol.htmlSincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson