DEBATE: Jehovah's Witnesses vs.Y'all (Note to mods inside)

[Archaic`]

Actually, these people aren't usually such bad debators. They're from the same school of debating as SAMAS (Who, to his credit, stays on that forum well away from any serious debates like these or ones on politics). Excellent when they're on the right side, but get them debating something like this, and...ug. Really, I think it's more of them thinking faith should override logic and morality. I think I got the "God's plan" arguement in there somewhere when I started beating them around the head with biblical morality. Along with a lot of excuses about me supposedly not taking the quotes in context.

Of course, how do I get around a problem like that? *Sighs* =/

[Darth Wong]

Actually, these people aren't usually such bad debators. They're from the same school of debating as SAMAS (Who, to his credit, stays on that forum well away from any serious debates like these or ones on politics). Excellent when they're on the right side, but get them debating something like this, and...ug. Really, I think it's more of them thinking faith should override logic and morality. I think I got the "God's plan" arguement in there somewhere when I started beating them around the head with biblical morality. Along with a lot of excuses about me supposedly not taking the quotes in context.

Of course, how do I get around a problem like that? *Sighs* =/

My personal favourite response to the "you're taking it out of context" argument:

The word "context" is not a "get out of jail free" card, you know. Explain the context in which mass-murder is OK.

And as soon as he tries to do that, hit him with:

Thank you for demonstrating how the basic ethos of your religion can be easily used to justify atrocities.

[Raptor 597]

Yes, the great Lennox has returned so what have you got too say Cyril?

[HemlockGrey]

Coming tonight.

Stay tuned!

[HemlockGrey]

The reply to Lennox's post is...right now!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Jesus speaking)
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.
Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This little piece of evidence means Jesus is not mecriful, but has came too bring the sword down upon nonbelivers

First off, I don't understand your purpose in quoting John 14:27. 'My peace I give to you' backs me up rather nicely, doesn't it?

And Matthew? Read the whole passage. Jesus is basically saying that people must accept him, even if it means conflict with their family and friends. Conflict = sword, hence the line.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Jesus speaking)
John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Jesus again contradicts himself. His own words if we are too take the NT literally. And it is up too "God" not you, and appraently God likes too lie.

Again, read the whole line. Here it is, in full, my emphasis added:

'Then the Pharisees said to him, "You are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not valid".Jesus answered, 'Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid because I know where I have come from or where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

In John 34, Jesus says '...not that I accept such human testimony, but I say these thngs so that youmay be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and youwere willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But I have a testimny greaer than John's...and the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf.'

In short? Jesus is special; he's the incarnation of God. Humans are given to lying and falsifaction to improve their stature. God is not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and my life was preserved."
Exodus 33:11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now even if you do not take the OT literally this still means something. All the orks of Judaism the base for Christanity is self-contradicting itself. If the begining is false what justifies the end? All a Christain is a complete Jew.

Um, if you don't take the OT literally, it means jackshit. Even if you don't, it doesn't matter. The passage states 'No one has ever seen God in all his glory.' Furthermore, this passage is John speaking, not Jesus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven.
Matthew 6:1 Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again this the NT contradicts the NT. Even the same book! Now which can you discount? Neither, you cannot speak for God. So the solution may the only possible IMO you can't do any righteous acts don't do any.

This one is easy. Matthew 6:1 states 'Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them."

So, don't do good deeds simply because you want people to be noticed and praised. It continues to say '...So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hyprocrites do in the syngouges and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 1:2-6 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again the basework is flawed. THe perceptions of the NT writers & Jesus based on the past prophets. I say this because Jesus often prayed too Moses, Elijah, Eezkial, etc for guidance. If the orginial prophets are screwed up how how can new ones be valid unless they completely discount everything and anything in the OT?

Matthew 1:2-6? What are you talking about? Matthew 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, and 1:6 is a geneology. Matthew 12: 6 is Jesus talking to the Pharisees about working on the Sabbath. There is no Matthew 1:26, and the part that it would have been in if it existed is the story of Jesus' birth. Matthew 16:21 is on self-denial, Matthew 16:12 is about the Pharisees; in fact, using the four numbers you provided, there is no passage in Matthew that is anything remotely like the one you describe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yet again my argument of OT & NT contradictions. The NT IMO had too make up for just anybody going too heaven so they say it was closed until Jesus opened it. Then how do you account for Moses, Abraham, Noah, Elijah, and others for entering heaven?

Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, here, right? He says 'If I have told you about earhtly things ad you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who has descended from heaven..."

In other words, Jesus is the only one qualified to tell Nicodemus about heavenly things because he's the only one who's been to heaven and is on Earth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24:29-34
[T]he sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. ... They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. ... I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
16:27-28
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Another contradiction. If the stars fall how can anything realistically survive? If Earth has no Sun, humanity shall die. Then how can people be here too be awarded by God? Further on too the quote's own contradictions: how can those that died be here too receive rewards for they are already dead?

God is omnipotent, you know. Natural law is no barrier to him. As for the rewards, you can recieve rewads if you're dead; it's called Heaven.

[Raptor 597]

The reply to Lennox's post is...right now!

Mine here too except I'm gettin confused with the quote things, it'll have too be worked out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Jesus speaking)
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.
Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This little piece of evidence means Jesus is not mecriful, but has came too bring the sword down upon nonbelivers

First off, I don't understand your purpose in quoting John 14:27. 'My peace I give to you' backs me up rather nicely, doesn't it?

And Matthew? Read the whole passage. Jesus is basically saying that people must accept him, even if it means conflict with their family and friends. Conflict = sword, hence the line

Nicely? I think you better think about that. What Jesus is saying is you don't be my little bitch wordship my ass you'll be quite peaceful, if you don't and be open too others I'll chop your head off. Yes, it backs you up that Jesus is just tyrant assuming he existed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Jesus speaking)
John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Jesus again contradicts himself. His own words if we are too take the NT literally. And it is up too "God" not you, and appraently God likes too lie.

Again, read the whole line. Here it is, in full, my emphasis added:

'Then the Pharisees said to him, "You are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not valid".Jesus answered, 'Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid because I know where I have come from or where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

Ah, yes that would be from the God which threatens as rob Svchinder onb Waterboy put it: "Cut his balls off!"

In John 34, Jesus says '...not that I accept such human testimony, but I say these thngs so that youmay be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and youwere willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But I have a testimny greaer than John's...and the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf.'

In short? Jesus is special; he's the incarnation of God. Humans are given to lying and falsifaction to improve their stature. God is not.

So all humans are lying scum? Wait that would include the Apostles too? So every human is lying scum even if a 100 million lie detector tests says they aren't?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and my life was preserved."
Exodus 33:11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now even if you do not take the OT literally this still means something. All the orks of Judaism the base for Christanity is self-contradicting itself. If the begining is false what justifies the end? All a Christain is a complete Jew.

Um, if you don't take the OT literally, it means jackshit. Even if you don't, it doesn't matter. The passage states 'No one has ever seen God in all his glory.' Furthermore, this passage is John speaking, not Jesus.

Wait so God isn't constantly in glory,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven.
Matthew 6:1 Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again this the NT contradicts the NT. Even the same book! Now which can you discount? Neither, you cannot speak for God. So the solution may the only possible IMO you can't do any righteous acts don't do any.

This one is easy. Matthew 6:1 states 'Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them."

So, don't do good deeds simply because you want people to be noticed and praised. It continues to say '...So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hyprocrites do in the syngouges and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others.'

Hmm, yes I'm surprised that I agree with you. On your point people shouldn't be hyprcritical I know too many. But too the argumental point is that one point says let it shine before men meaning all the righteousness. Oh, btw these "righteous" acts of the Christain Dogma were courtesy of the Bible. Both OT & NT.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 1:2-6 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again the basework is flawed. THe perceptions of the NT writers & Jesus based on the past prophets. I say this because Jesus often prayed too Moses, Elijah, Eezkial, etc for guidance. If the orginial prophets are screwed up how how can new ones be valid unless they completely discount everything and anything in the OT?

Matthew 1:2-6? What are you talking about? Matthew 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, and 1:6 is a geneology. Matthew 12: 6 is Jesus talking to the Pharisees about working on the Sabbath. There is no Matthew 1:26, and the part that it would have been in if it existed is the story of Jesus' birth. Matthew 16:21 is on self-denial, Matthew 16:12 is about the Pharisees; in fact, using the four numbers you provided, there is no passage in Matthew that is anything remotely like the one you describe.

Ok, I'll admit it that one was from a quote I recently found, and I didn't bother too check it out in my Bible. I'm thinking it came from one of the Gospels. Shit though I had read before somewhere anyone know the number? But it's there and whats your view on OT & NT reliablity because I just wanna know.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yet again my argument of OT & NT contradictions. The NT IMO had too make up for just anybody going too heaven so they say it was closed until Jesus opened it. Then how do you account for Moses, Abraham, Noah, Elijah, and others for entering heaven?

Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, here, right? He says 'If I have told you about earhtly things ad you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who has descended from heaven..."

In other words, Jesus is the only one qualified to tell Nicodemus about heavenly things because he's the only one who's been to heaven and is on Earth.

No, Elijah or Eeizkal I get mixed up with the 2 went too Heaven and had a prohetic vision with "God" and told his story much the way Moses did. And as stated by other posters Jesus was their to hold up the ways of the Old Testament. Jesus approves of it as in holding up the laws then so be it. Also Moses saw God face to face, and I like I said Jesus came too uphold the laws of the prophets and follow in their footsteps. Thats whole point of the debate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24:29-34
[T]he sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. ... They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. ... I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
16:27-28
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Another contradiction. If the stars fall how can anything realistically survive? If Earth has no Sun, humanity shall die. Then how can people be here too be awarded by God? Further on too the quote's own contradictions: how can those that died be here too receive rewards for they are already dead?

God is omnipotent, you know. Natural law is no barrier to him. As for the rewards, you can recieve rewads if you're dead; it's called Heaven.

You approve of evolution and science correct? I'm not ralking of God I'm talking of Earth surviving which unrealistic the humans die. "The elements would be destroyed by fire" If God is speaking of the natural elements as the 109 on the perodic table well then we're all screwed cause we are made up of them. Oh, shit Earth is dead. Unless this "God" can restore everything with his magic wand. Omipotent defies all known physics how can it exist? You ain't got nothing too back it up. And I don't have a spaceship too prove you wrong. So you efute all your scientific knowledge too believe in "God"? When it comes down too it your like the Fundies, you refute everything too believe in nothing This is all basically turning into an opinion slug fest. And is just me or we starting to go in circles?

I think I'm done. LEt me know if something is wrong in the posting.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The appearent idea is a bizarre blood human sacrifice with Jesus Christ replacing the scapegoat and opening the gates of heaven...or something. Cleansed by the blood of the savior...er...something.

[Priesto]

JW say only around 150,000 people will get to heaven, that is perpostorous.There is more than one God in Mormonisism it sees Adam being the father of humanity as a God, along with Jesus.According to Momons, the virgin birth was not really a virgin birth.It was a sexual act, something that is wrong.

[Lagmonster]

According to Momons, the virgin birth was not really a virgin birth. It was a sexual act, something that is wrong.

Are you saying that sexual acts are wrong, or that it is wrong that Mary had a virgin birth?

[Antediluvian]

According to Momons, the virgin birth was not really a virgin birth. It was a sexual act, something that is wrong.

Are you saying that sexual acts are wrong, or that it is wrong that Mary had a virgin birth?

He doesn't like the fact that Jesus could have been made by the ol bump and grind.

[Antediluvian]

Actually, these people aren't usually such bad debators. They're from the same school of debating as SAMAS (Who, to his credit, stays on that forum well away from any serious debates like these or ones on politics). Excellent when they're on the right side, but get them debating something like this, and...ug. Really, I think it's more of them thinking faith should override logic and morality. I think I got the "God's plan" arguement in there somewhere when I started beating them around the head with biblical morality. Along with a lot of excuses about me supposedly not taking the quotes in context.

Of course, how do I get around a problem like that? *Sighs* =/

I've had fundies pull that on me as well.

For example: I was arguing with this fundie and this poster who claimed she wasn't a fundie (even though she defended the Bible hot and heavy, huh.) and he used that taking quotes out of context routine when I started showing the contradictions in the Bible.

Needless to say, he got pissed, especially when I started cutting through that crap, and when he started repeating himself, I just walked off.

[Archaic`]

Yup. About that stage when they start pulling the context routine, they turn into tireless rebutters, and expect me to wallow through all their crap to make my own. I just don't have the time or patience for that sort of debate.

[Priesto]

According to Momons, the virgin birth was not really a virgin birth. It was a sexual act, something that is wrong.

Are you saying that sexual acts are wrong, or that it is wrong that Mary had a virgin birth?

Yes sex is wrong. but no, I meant that It was a virgin birth not a sexual act.

[Wicked Pilot]

He doesn't like the fact that Jesus could have been made by the ol bump and grind.

I bet Joseph bought the old "it was emmaculate, not Bob the mailman" excuse. Why doesn't that work anymore?

[Smalleyjedi]

I didnt have time to read more than the first two pages, but I think I must bring up one point. You dismiss the bible because many of the customs and rules were immoral. One major point of the bibk le is that every man on earth sins. God, however, can forigve any offense if you are truly sorry, and that even an imperfect person through imperfect actions can bring about a positive change. It is showing that you don't have to be perfect, just that if you are sorry foir your immoral actions, then you will not be held accountable for them. And before someone says then you can just do whatever you want and apologize, if you are truly sorry and trying to follow God, you would not do such a thing.

[Archaic`]

You dismiss the bible because many of the customs and rules were immoral.

Most, not many.

It is showing that you don't have to be perfect, just that if you are sorry foir your immoral actions, then you will not be held accountable for them.

So I can commit mass murder, the become born again and therefore not be accountable. Right......

And before someone says then you can just do whatever you want and apologize, if you are truly sorry and trying to follow God, you would not do such a thing.

Why not? The bible basically tells people to go out and commit atrocities anyway.

[Smalleyjedi]

ALl you did was repeat your original argument after i offered a rebuttal. In human terms, humans are not going to forgive a mass murderor even if he is sorry. God however will always forgive someone, no matter how atrocious the crime, if they are truly sorry and repentant. Again, yes the bible told to do immoral things dealing with the cutoms of the time. Those were flawed, but fit in that even flawed people can accomplish God's work.

[Archaic`]

Your "rebuttal" hardly rebutted the points raised in my original arguement. Your "God" promotes this immorality himself, and commits such immoral actions himself. That he forgives these people only goes to show how easily the bible justifies such immorality. That the customs have changed since then does not change the basic ethos the bible promotes. ie. Religious bigotry and hatred, sexism, homophobia, and mass murder.

Furthermore, we don't dismiss the bible just because it's perhaps the most evil book ever written. We dismiss it because it's factually wrong, containing numerous contradictions with itself, and with proven science.

[Archaic`]

In reply to Australopithicus's comments on page 6 of the High School Evolution topic (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 9&start=75)......


Hello Mr. Tireless Rebutter. I suppose I shouldn't be so suprised. Afterall, according to your own literature...

Don't even consider the thoughts of those that disagree with the GB (Reasoning p.36) Pr.11:9

It's sad really. I seem to know more about your own religion than you do.

From what you're about to wite, it doesn't seem that way to me.
It only compounds my previous opinions of you, and multiplies them a fewfold.

Attack the arguement, not the man...
For starters, if I'm not mistaken, you were the JW here who had to be informed about the whole 1914 incident. You might seem to know your presented doctrine well, but as for the history, and on the forces driving the creation of that doctrine, your knowledge is sadly lacking.

I simply quoted the SAB's comment on it because I agree with that assessment.

Mm - hm. Just because you agree with it doesn't make it true. I could say 'you're all gay', and if someone were to agree with the assesment, then from your point of argument, that would automatically make it true. You can't just put up stuff because you agree with it. Arguments don't always work that way.

Strawman. I never used the fact that the SAB said it as justification for the assessment being true. If you don't agree with my assessment and theirs, then provide justification for why they aren't so.

but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought."
I'm sorry, this promotes people having their own viewpoint? Pull the other one.

Ah, the great anti - fundie tradition of NOT READING THE WHOLE POST BEFORE BITING IT DOWN. Not only do you know nothing of our religion outside of what your precious skeptics' annotated Bible says, which is in itself filled with half - truths at best, but it seems you can't read either. So I'll put it in terms you can understand.

It's a means of encouragement to love one another and to be mindful that everyone has a point of view ON VARIOUS THINGS AND THAT WE SHOULDN'T ARGUE ON PETTY THINGS THAT COULD DAMAGE OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

That better, or do you need further clarification?

Again, attack the arguement, not the man. I read your entire post, and it was a load of crap. You're repeating here an interpretation of the passage that cannot be justified with the quote from the scriptures. That clear enough to you yet? Baka.

the fact that I've read your Bible is irrelevant.

Explain why. If I were to say in an essay of comparison between one chapter of a book and another, and were to say, 'the fact that I've read the chapters is irrelevant', do you suppose that the examiner would look favourably on me?

Your analogy is flawed. The fact that I've read the whole thing or not is completly irrelevant given that I've already shown myself more than able to pull quotes from it to justify my interpretations of the parts I have read.

That the JW's have mistranslated sections of the bible to justify their beliefs is a fact you can't deny. If you'd like to try to, stand up to my point about mistranslating "hypocrite" as "apostate" instead of avoiding the issue.

Of course, Catholicism and Protestantism haven't been doing that with their immortal soul doctrines and hellfire teachings, have they? The replacement of hypocrite with apostate (and there is a reason for it, which I shall explain in a minute) seems rather insignificant to me.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that Catholicism and Protestantism are guilty of it doesn't give you justification for doing it. You're just as bad as them, if not worse, because your changes were made with intent to use them to justify differences in belief.
As for immortal soul.....I believe the bible justifys that position in certain sections, doesn't it? Yours wouldn't of course, because it's been altered and had sections "cut out" by having them placed in brackets. Get a KJV.
It completly changes the meaning of the passages, allowing you to make the fallacious interpretation of the passages which you use to justify your treatment of the disfellowshipped. It's a very significant change.

Oh, well. I'll answer you (which I had thought not to do before due to the lack of purpose that answering such a question would achieve when you are only going to treat the matter as ad hominem stuff). In Psalms 35: 16, It mentions the words 'the apostate mockers for a cake'. The direct translation of this phrase is 'ungodly buffoons for a cake'. Would you call an apostate person 'ungodly'? The definition of an apostate is someone who rebels against his previous religious beliefs. Does he not then become ungodly? And to a religious person, would he not seem a buffoon for rejecting holy truths? Therefore, the translation of 'apostate' should be summarily justified'.

Psalms 35:16 (KJV)
With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.

I assume you're referring to the first sentance there.
Your translation of "ungodly buffoons for a cake" is flawed.
The translation comes out at hypocritical, not ungodly, and as mockers, not buffoons. The KJV is correct, yours is not.
Furthermore, ungodly would imply athiesm. An "apostate" person is not necessarily "ungodly", given by the numbers of the disfellowshipped who become Christians of other various denominations.
As for mockers Vs. buffoons, while a religious person may seen a buffoon to them for rejecting what they see as holy truths, it makes no difference to the fact that you have willfully mistranslated the phrase, and the change of two words is enough to change the entire meaning of the passage.

From the skeptics annotated Bible

Yipee. This again.

Stop whining. It's a perfectly valid resource. Or is your criteria for valid resources sites that don't present anti-fundi messages based on logical interpretation of the bible, hmmmm?

An ex-JW is an apostate,and no one is more despised and feared by the GB.

Not necessarily. A disfellowshipped one is not an apostate. We quantify apostacy by those who actively engage in upsetting our religious balance. For instance, eearlier this year, people went up to one of our kingdom halls and sellotaped anti - Jehovah's witness literature to the front of the hall.

That is not your cults official definition of apostacy, as you and I both well know.
In any case, it's still flawed. A christian could have done a similar act to what you describe, in protest over your mishandling of the sexual abuse of children of JW's. You're using a biased sample and poisoning the well for the rest of the post.

What do you call them? Misinformed? I call them apostates, and with examples like this, I should say that there's no wonder for that. We do not fear them. We keep them at arm's length in order for them not to interfere with the way we worship. The last time I checked, democracy allowed for a right to religious expression. People like the example I have given above are not just stifling our organisation, they are also stifling basic human rights. So, what do you call them?

You keep them at arms length because you are unwilling to listen to their different perspective. However, this does not even go halfway to describing what you to do Ex-JW's, splitting up families and friendships for the sole reason that they do not agree with you on various points of doctrine. Is it right to take a mother away from her children just because she became an athiest, agnostic, or another denomination of christianity? Democracy might allow for the right to religious expression, but it does not allow for stifling basic human rights, which is what you are doing with your treatment of the disfellowshipped.

And again, stop trying to use such a biased sample. Those people are not representitive of all non JW's.

And furthermore for that matter of fact.....what do you think you're doing when you're going door to door? Personally, I consider that stifiling my right to make my own judgements. Preach to those who go to you, not those you go to.

JWs are not allowed to speak to them under pain of disfellowshipping. Apostates will meet a horrible end at Armageddon, much worse than that reserved for regular nonJWs.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is absurd. We hold out hope for these people that they will realise the grievousness of their errors. We are glad to see them at the kingdom hall, so long as they are not there to stir up trouble. We don't have a special fate reserved for them at armageddon. They are not ultra - hated people to look down on like am'harets. They are people too. Wrong in faith, but we cannot do anything about that. We have free will. God made us that way. It's your choice whether you want to serve him or not. We won't hate you for it.

Stop relying on this JW - bashing, biased sorce of information. It gets you nowhewre.

My source of information is hardly biased. Claiming it is hardly helps your position. They mearly restate comments in your own JW publications. If you want to lie and misinterpret your own doctine, so be it.

Let's see, for starters....

"hope for these people that they will realise the grievousness of their errors"

But doesn't Heb.6:4 say they're hopeless and will never repent?

Okay, now that I'm warmed up....

They are not ultra - hated people to look down on like am'harets.

*Laughs*

An article titled "Search Through Me, O God" appeared in the October 1, 1993 Watchtower. Speaking about "apostates" on page 19, beginning with paragraph 15, we read:

Regarding them, the psalmist said: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become tome real enemies." (Psalm 139:21, 22) It was because they intensely hated Jehovah that David looked on them with abhorrence. Apostates are included among those who show their hatred of Jehovah by revolting against him. Apostasy is, in reality, a rebellion against Jehovah. Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must hate (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have inseparably attached themselves to the badness. True Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they "feel a loathing" toward those who have made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance.--Job 13:16; Romans
12:19; 2 John 9, 10.

Also, in The Watchtower, April 1, 1983, page 24.

These apostates 'have gone out from us because they were not of our sort.' (1 John 2:18, 19) Hence, they no longer have fellowship with loyal anointed witnesses of Jehovah and their companions, and therefore these self-seeking heretics have no "sharing" with the Father and the Son, no matter how much they may boast of having intimacy with God and Christ. Instead, they are in spiritual darkness. (1 John 1:3, 6) Lovers of light and truth must take a firm stand against these promoters of false teaching. In no way do loyal witnesses of Jehovah want to be accomplices in the "wicked deeds" of such unfaithful persons by supporting their ungodly words and activities in any manner.

Oh screw it, I can't be bothered being melodramatic. Here's the rest.

If we analyze these warnings given by Jesus and Paul, the following identifying features of typical apostates emerge: (1) Deviation from the truth (2) Twisted, empty speech (3) Efforts to subvert the faith of some and draw away disciples after themselves (4) Hypocrisy ('wolves in sheep's covering') (5) Recognizable by their fruits; they 'advance to more and more ungodliness' --The Watchtower, August 1, 1980, page 18.

Because apostates "originate with the world" and have its wicked spirit, "they speak what proceeds from the world and the world listens to them." Since we have Jehovah's spirit, we can detect the unspiritual nature of their "inspired expressions" and therefore we reject them. --The Watchtower, July 15, 1986, page 20.

Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's organization and actively try to hinder its work. ... True Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they "feel a loathing" toward those who have made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance. --The Watchtower, October 1, 1993, page 19.

But persecutors, apostates, and other disrespectful opposers will be compelled to 'bow down'-acknowledging in chagrin that Jehovah's Witnesses do indeed represent God's organization. --The Watchtower, March 1, 1985, page 16.

Is it not true that those who have gone out from us over the years because "they were not of our sort," and who try to induce others to follow the same life-imperiling course, have cut themselves off from the source of solid spiritual food and refreshing spiritual waters? (1 John 2:19) And these senseless ones, far from being generous and openhanded toward those of mankind who hunger and thirst after righteousness, do not see any urgent need for an organized preaching work in our time. They would allow each one to be guided by his own private reading and interpretation of the Bible... But the senseless opposers are not interested in the real welfare of those seeking the truth. --The Watchtower, May 15, 1984, page 18.

Thus the one who doubts to the point of becoming an apostate sets himself up as a judge. He thinks he knows better than his fellow Christians, better also than the "faithful and discreet slave," through whom he has learned the best part, if not all that he knows about Jehovah God and his purposes. He develops a spirit of independence, and becomes "proud in heart . . . something detestable to Jehovah." (Prov. 16:5) Some apostates even think they know better than God... --The Watchtower, August 1, 1980, page 19-20.

After having yielded to such works of the flesh as "enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects," apostates often fall victim to other fleshly works such as "drunken bouts," "loose conduct" and "fornication." --The Watchtower, August 1, 1980, page 20.

The obligation to hate lawlessness also applies to all activity by apostates. Our attitude toward apostates should be that of David, who declared: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies. --The Watchtower, July 15, 1992, page 12.

May we never be like those modern-day apostates who, rather than give a public witness, prefer to slander their brothers and to fall back into the ways of the world-antitypical Egypt. --The Watchtower, December 15, 1986, page 12.

Our safety lies in avoiding apostate propaganda as though it were poison, which in fact it is. --The Watchtower, July 15, 1992, page 13.

Love 'believes and hopes all things' found in God's Word and moves us to appreciate the spiritual food provided by the 'faithful slave' class, instead of listening to the slanderous statements of lying apostates. --The Watchtower, October 15, 1989, page 19.

Apostates often appeal to the ego, claiming that we have been deprived of our freedoms, including the freedom to interpret the Bible for ourselves. ... True, such smooth talkers may look outwardly clean in a physical and moral way. But inside they are spiritually unclean, having given in to prideful, independent thinking. --The Watchtower, November 1, 1987, page 19-20.

Like gangrene, apostate reasoning is nothing but quick-spreading spiritual death. --The Watchtower, March 15, 1986, page 15.
Therefore, resolve in your heart that you will never even touch the poison that apostates want you to sip. --The Watchtower, March 15, 1986, page 20.

Apostates who hate former associates in Jehovah's service no longer have such fellowship with God and Christ. --The Watchtower, July 15, 1986, page 10.

As loyal servants of Jehovah, why would we even want to peek at the propaganda put out by these rejecters of Jehovah's table who now verbally beat those who are helping us take in "healthful words"? --The Watchtower, July 1, 1994, page 12.

From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude. ... They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. --The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, page 28-29.

What would you expect from the table of demons? And while the apostates may also present certain facts, these are usually taken out of context with the goal of drawing others away from the table of Jehovah. --The Watchtower, July 1, 1994, page 12.

Didn't know I had access to this stuff, did you? Stop spewing crap so easily disproven. I've got plenty more where this came from.

Your Governing Body puts it in brackets in your translation because it directly contradicts certain tenents of your faith.

Uh, no they don't. Brackets are only used for plurals and proper names in place of he, she, you, I, it, and them. Not for contradicting things, as we don't have them.

It contradicts your doctrine, and is in brackets in your translation because of it. That's why the whole sentance is bracketed. Your interpretation might apply if it was one letter, but it's not. Concession accepted.

The dead being raised and walking around after Jesus' death directly contradicts Watchtower teaching that the dead are supposed to remain dead until after Armageddon, at which time those faithful to the governing body will be resurrected.

Does it say how long after Jesus' death? Besides, there are plenty of scriptures that mention deaths of souls and perishing of the entire person anyway, which contradict your point.

Irrelevant. Your JW doctrine is that the dead are supposed to remain dead until after Armageddon. Your doctine is in conflict with this section, which is why it was bracketed off. Now are you going to defend the point or keep providing red herrings?

Still think you know more than me about my religion? Care to try your luck again? Quite presumptuous of you, really, and I hope the irony isn't lost on you... Now stop wasting my time with half - hearted ridiculous arguments taken from an absurd source that is filled with fallacies. Why don't you get it from the horses' mouth instead?

From the horses' mouth? Oh, I think I've done that well enough. Seeing as I pulled out Watchtower quotes which contradicted your own statements about JW belief, yes, I do think I know more about your religion than you do.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Does "excess verbage" mean anything to you?

[Archaic`]

*Shrugs* It seems to be the only thing he understands. If it takes a mountain of quotes from his own religion's publications to prove to him that he's misrepresenting his own beliefs, I'll give them to him.

[Priesto]

You dismiss the bible because many of the customs and rules were immoral.

Most, not many.

It is showing that you don't have to be perfect, just that if you are sorry foir your immoral actions, then you will not be held accountable for them.

So I can commit mass murder, the become born again and therefore not be accountable. Right......

And before someone says then you can just do whatever you want and apologize, if you are truly sorry and trying to follow God, you would not do such a thing.

Why not? The bible basically tells people to go out and commit atrocities anyway.

A mass murderer would had to have been driven insane to commit such an act.Furthermore, there is nothing too hard for the Lord and this sick person would be healed and could easily be saved if the person repented.But the mentiong of random events to prove a point is flawed, in that you'd have to know more about the person to go into anymore detail as far as punishment is concerned.No, you are still held accountable for your sins, when you are saved.If you don't know you are sinning, you are not accountable, this is if you are not saved and know nothing about the word.Obviously in most cases you'd know what you were doing was bad or something.But if a child is raised up in a violent household, all they will know is violence.It is until the word reaches them that they can be enlightened.

The mentioning of biblical accounts is flawed in that those were different times, when warfare was physical.This doesn't apply to today as far as "atrocities" are concerned.If God commanded it, it was to be done.If you do not understand the Bible, you should not bring it up.It is your lack of understanding on why people are judged and killed, that make things in the bible appear as something they aren't.You believe God's judgement is wrong, which shows you don't understand any of those events in the Bible.

[Archaic`]

If you do not understand the Bible, you should not bring it up.

Perhaps you should be following your own advice then? You've obviously not read the topic, or I wouldn't have to say this. Context is not a get-out-of-jail free card. Killing someone is killing someone, no matter what time period it came from. The fact someone ordered you to do it doesn't make it right. It makes both you, and the person giving the order in the wrong. By ordering the deaths of more people than I care to count, the biblical god makes himself evil.

And let's not forget all the times he's killed people himself, without using any lackies. Here's a challenge. Justify God's killing of most life on earth during the Great Flood then. I know this could be taken as an appeal to emotion, but even so....Did all the innocent little babies suckling at their mothers teat deserve to die? What about the cute little bunny rabbits, were they deserving to die too? (See where I'm going with this yet?)

[Antediluvian]

You dismiss the bible because many of the customs and rules were immoral.

Most, not many.

It is showing that you don't have to be perfect, just that if you are sorry foir your immoral actions, then you will not be held accountable for them.

So I can commit mass murder, the become born again and therefore not be accountable. Right......

And before someone says then you can just do whatever you want and apologize, if you are truly sorry and trying to follow God, you would not do such a thing.

Why not? The bible basically tells people to go out and commit atrocities anyway.

A mass murderer would had to have been driven insane to commit such an act.Furthermore, there is nothing too hard for the Lord and this sick person would be healed and could easily be saved if the person repented.But the mentiong of random events to prove a point is flawed, in that you'd have to know more about the person to go into anymore detail as far as punishment is concerned.No, you are still held accountable for your sins, when you are saved.If you don't know you are sinning, you are not accountable, this is if you are not saved and know nothing about the word.Obviously in most cases you'd know what you were doing was bad or something.But if a child is raised up in a violent household, all they will know is violence.It is until the word reaches them that they can be enlightened.

The mentioning of biblical accounts is flawed in that those were different times, when warfare was physical.This doesn't apply to today as far as "atrocities" are concerned.If God commanded it, it was to be done.If you do not understand the Bible, you should not bring it up.It is your lack of understanding on why people are judged and killed, that make things in the bible appear as something they aren't.You believe God's judgement is wrong, which shows you don't understand any of those events in the Bible.

Murder is murder. And murder of innocents is reprehensible, no matter who orders it.

Biblical "morality" is laughable at best, and horrifying at worse. Justifying cold-blooded murder is a good example of this.

[Durandal]

A mass-murderer is someone who has engaged in murderous acts on very large scales. God fits that definition to a tee. Face it, "The Lord" is a mass-murderer by the most straightforward definition of the word.