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

[Archaic`]

They'd be disfellowshipped, meaning their entire families (Sons, daughters, spouses, even parents and in-laws), not to mention a great deal if not all of their IRL friends, and of course every other JW in existance, would completly shun them. They understandably don't want to be cut off from their families like that.

Though, for those in the south and who happen to be Black as well....

[Utsanomiko]

Hmm, so separation from the belief system means separation from family...

Can you say 'cult'? Spell it out with me now: C-U-L-T.

Why not just shave their heads and wear Nikes, while their at it?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

They'd be disfellowshipped, meaning their entire families (Sons, daughters, spouses, even parents and in-laws), not to mention a great deal if not all of their IRL friends, and of course every other JW in existance, would completly shun them. They understandably don't want to be cut off from their families like that.

Though, for those in the south and who happen to be Black as well....

Wow... I bet Jesus would love that practice. WTF is up with these Christian sects/cults and their absolute refusal to treat each their members, their "competitors" and the world in general decently? Isn't that what that shit is supposed to be about? I mean, their methods aside, aren't these people supposedly operating under good intentions at least? *disgustipated*

[Archaic`]

Supposedly. You can see the mountain of evidence I pulled from the JW's own Watchtower publications in that bloody long post on the previous page. Reading through the "rebuttals" of that, I see only lies and misinterpretations.

[EmperorMing]

They'd be disfellowshipped, meaning their entire families (Sons, daughters, spouses, even parents and in-laws), not to mention a great deal if not all of their IRL friends, and of course every other JW in existance, would completly shun them. They understandably don't want to be cut off from their families like that.

Though, for those in the south and who happen to be Black as well....

Wow... I bet Jesus would love that practice. WTF is up with these Christian sects/cults and their absolute refusal to treat each their members, their "competitors" and the world in general decently? Isn't that what that shit is supposed to be about? I mean, their methods aside, aren't these people supposedly operating under good intentions at least? *disgustipated*

No they just want to be high and mighty about themselves being "the one true faith" and all that ego trip bullshit....
Idiots

[EmperorMing]

Sorta like some of the SDA bullshit I went through years ago...

[Priesto]

Just shut up and die.

Now that's just juvenile. There's no need for that.

Have you seen some of the shit that Priesto has written in the past on this board?

Because someone doesn't conform to what you think is right , means it's okay to be childish? I do not believe so.

[Lord_Xerxes]

Now that's just juvenile. There's no need for that.

Have you seen some of the shit that Priesto has written in the past on this board?

Because someone doesn't conform to what you think is right , means it's okay to be childish? I do not believe so.

Because someone doesn't conform to what you think is right, means it's okay to ram it down their throat?

[Priesto]

Just shut up and die.

Now that's just juvenile. There's no need for that.



But anyhow, I am late to this debate, so kindly forgive the sin of not reading through the whole damned lot.

A question or two, though, out of curiosity for our resident believers:

1) What brought you to your faith? Parents/ family/ friends/ the bible/ what?

2) Is your life noticeably better for it? How so?

3) Would you consider it right and proper to evangelise and attempt to convert nonbelievers?

4) What are your views on a persons' lack of belief in your faith? How do you feel about them, if at all?

5) Does your faith have room to coexist with scientific scrutiny?

6) Which is 'worse'; the point of view held by an atheist or the point of view held by a believer in another, separate religion regarding god/ gods and their existance?






None of these questions are intended to be barbed, and I would be interested to hear the answers.

1.My mother.
2.Yes.I know the power of prayer, that alone should be enough.
3.As a christian your role is to win souls for the Lord.By preaching and teaching God's word.The nonbeliever cannot be forced, but it is our job to preach the gospel.The holy spirit does the rest, since God knows the individual not us.We don't know if the person is ready to see the truth or not, only God does.
5.It does and has already.It is science that says a women giving birth without the help of a man is possible.The only historical recording of this can be found in the Bible.The bright star seen in the sky by the three wise men, has been established to be fact.Using computers to calculate the position of the stars, a few years before christ there was a crossing of two bodys in space that would've made it appear like there was a very bright star in the sky.We know the person who calculated the birth of christ was off on his years, so it makes sense.
6.It would be the latter.To say you are sanctified and are not is worse than to not know about being holy in the first place.You can claim to be a believer of something, that doesn't make you any more correct than a nonbeliever.You may know better(according to your teachings regarding your religion even if it is wrong) but that doesn't mean you are following through with it.If you seek the truth you will ultimately find it, there would be no division if people really did this.Religion wouldn't even exist if people examined their lives and their lifestyle sincerely.Key word, sincerely.

[Priesto]

Have you seen some of the shit that Priesto has written in the past on this board?

Because someone doesn't conform to what you think is right , means it's okay to be childish? I do not believe so.

Because someone doesn't conform to what you think is right, means it's okay to ram it down their throat?

I speak something, I do not insult or make attacks.Intelligent replies are fine with me.This board is supposed to be logical, not full of trash talking and anger.

[Lord_Xerxes]

I speak something, I do not insult or make attacks.Intelligent replies are fine with me.This board is supposed to be logical, not full of trash talking and anger.

What you speak is garbage. And it is garabage we don't feel like eatting. And yes, it is the force-fed kind. here's a nice sampling of your so-called "intelligent replies" that are just merely thinly vieled propaganda disguised as the responses to questions:

Well I already knew you'd revert back to the same thing most come back to.You look at God as a person, when God is not flesh and bones.Murder is murder, when man does it.God judges for it is God, only God can judge not man.That is why we cannot partake in the act of playing God.Playing with someones life is unexcusable.Man has no authority over someones life unless given this by God.The biblical accounts are cases in which God gave the authority to his children to cast them down.But they weren't casting judgement since God decides whether you go to hell or heaven.Whenever someone dies, that isn't the end of the story.Whether you are 2 or 50, that is only the end of your physical life.You will not accept this so I'll leave it at that.
You should know that murder involves a man taking the life of another unrightfully.We don't classify the death penalty as murder do we? no.of course the death penalty is wrong, but it's still a point.

Yes sex is wrong.

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.

Boy, nothing I love better than a nice spoonful of absolute bullshit. Please sir, may I have another?

By the way, Priesto, if sex is wrong...then so is your existance on earth. So kill yourself.

[Archaic`]

A partial reply. (Yes, this bloody huge this is only partial) The rest of his post is just his bigotry and misrepresentations of the quotes I've brought up from his watchtower publications anyway. Not to mention whinging that I can't use them against him. I'm sure there's someone here who'll affirm my right to post this stuff to criticize it, right?



Alright, before I start, Australopithicus, there is one lesson you really need to learn....Reply to your opponents whole damn rebuttal instead of just snipping sentences and taking them out of context. Every time you've done this, I've put the full paragraph in, adding in emphasis of the one part you took to make your rebuttal. Bits you snipped I'll put in brackets, just for the irony of how your NWT does that for parts of the scriptures you don't like. Yes it's excessive verbage, but right now I don't give a damn. Next time maybe you won't snip my pointing out your logical fallacies.


Warning everyone! Excessive Verbage ahead!

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 would say 'what the hell are you on about?' but I don't expect a reply, seeing as I won't be posting here for a looooooooong time (please, hold back the tears, everyone ) due to my eclipse with my obsession of DBZ, as it's finally back on CNX. Also, my GCSE mock exams roll around in 3 weeks, so I'll have no time for any of you. Too bad.

Oh come now. Surely you aren't saying you don't know what the 1914 incident is still? I made a comment on it a while back in this very thread. Your cult said that Judgement Day was at hand. When it didn't happen, they made up a bullshit excuse that even contradicts the bible's description of how the event should've happened.

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.

And yet you still don't understand what I'm on about.

Switch the "you" and "I" and you'd have a sentence that makes sense in context.

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.

Charming man. Your knowledge of Japanese insults doesn't impress me, Bakayarou. Make your point already.

I've made it plenty of times. What I'm waiting for is your rebuttal of them. This post still doesn't cut it. Before we even get to the discussion you're misquoting 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.

Pulling quotes is of no use unless you capture two things:
1. What the passage is on about, and
2. What the passage means to the particular religion that puts it out.

It seems that you have neither.

Oh? Which would be why I seem to know more about your religion just from my meger studies than you do? I'm not sure if your misrepresentations of your own religion come from plain ignorance, or from your code about lying.

Abraham asks Sarah to lie for him. Gen.12:13 and 20:2 (And Isaac does the same with Rebekah in Gen.26:7)
The governing body uses these little fibs as examples for JWs. Lying is OK if the lying is directed towards "nowworshipers of Jehovah" (Insight on the Scriptures, p.245). This is called the Theocratic War Strategy.

My quotes and comments capture both. If they haven't, then prove that instead of offering only your poor opinion.
Now if only your quotes of my words captured my original meaning. Don't worry, I've referenced my previous words better than you did. Though I don't know why I bothered. The people here aren't taken in by those sort of pathetic debating tactics.

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.

I never said they did.

I think the above shows otherwise. You didn't use the exact words, but the "They did it too, so what's the problem?" meaning in your words is quite clear.
One difference I could have noted earlier. Catholicism and Protestantism don't change their bible. Catholicism for instance has those declarations by the Pope (He said that hell doesn't exist and that the worst punishment one could have in the next life was to be set away from god. Want the quote?
I must ask BTW....do you hate Catholic's like your precious bible instructs you to because they're "idol worshipers"?

Two wrongs don't make a right.[/b] 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.

The scriptures at Ecclesiastes 9:5, Psalms 146:4 and Ezekiel 18:4, 20 automatically refute the immortal soul doctrine. The Ezekiel verses use the word 'soul' in them, which is the nail in the proverbial coffin.

And by the way, I DO have a KJV. It's white with silver edging on the pages, and sits on a shelf in my bedroom with a smaller Christian prayerbook of similar characteristics. It's quite pretty. I have a test for your KJV. Look up Psalms 83:18 in your KJV and tell me what it says. We shall see if it has stood the test of time and translation. The debate about who has the best translation has roared for decades. The discovery of the dead sea scrolls in the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts has fuelled the debate, as who has the translation closest to the scrolls is therefore the most accurate. I say it's ours. You say it's yours. I then say who cares?

*Yawn*

Rachel's soul departed from her body. But how can a soul leave a body if, as the governing body of the JWs teaches, the soul is the body? Gen.35:18
Saul has a witch bring Samuel back from the dead. Witnesses claim that Saul didn't really see Samuel, but only thought that he did. A hallucination, I Guess. (R.385)1 Sam.28:3-20
"And the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Ec.12:7
Mt.17:12
The rich man and Lazarus. Lk.16:31
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Lk.23:43
Jn.5:28-29
For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead. 1 Pet.4:6

And those ones contradict your viewpoint.

As for your "challenge"

83:18
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

I fail to see your point with that challenge.

Who cares? Anyone who is trying to engage in a proper debate. If you're debating an opponent using a bad translation as the basis for your arguements, then you're screwed. And when parts of the NWT are *known* to be mistranslated on purpose....

Now, I'm feeling vindictive, so I'm giving you a ton of stuff to read. Specifically, criticisms of the NWT. And they're not even written by athiests this time. Guess I'm less vindictive than I thought.

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/isnwtbetter.pdf (123k PDF file)
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/nwt.htm
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/mislead.htm
http://www.freeminds.org/history/NWTauthors.htm

Those kill a number of your arguements on the treatment of the disfellowshipped that you bring up later, so don't expect me to repeat myself over and over.

Two wrongs don't make a right.[/b] 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.

Uh, uh, u - uh. NOT disfellowshipped. APOSTATES. There is a large difference (which I pointed out in that post of mine which you so charmingly called 'a load of c**p). Disfellowshipped ones are often seen at the meetings of Jehovah's people, and we are GLAD to see them there. For instance, a Mrs. C and a Mr. J (Names edited for rights of privacy) have both been disfellowshipped (Mr. J twice) in my congregation. They turned up to the meetings, and we were happy to see them there. They are now both reinstated servants of Jehovah. Apostates are different. They are those who left on purpose, and are out to upset our spiritual balance in our organisation, AS I SAID BEFORE, which suggests that you didn't read it all, or that you skimmed through it all. They oppose us, and therefore are considered a threat to our spiritual health. They do this on purpose and they do it relentlessly. They are NOT the same as ordinary disfellowshipped ones.

That you accept them back in is irrelevant. The purpose of disfellowshiping is
(1) to cause the repentance of the errant Christian
(2) to remove a stumbling stone from the church, so that others would not be infected (1 Cor. 5:6,7)
(3) to instill the others with fear of God's judgment for pursuing a wrong course
(4) to keep the church free from a marred reputation with the world (Rom. 2:23,24).
If the errant brother or sister was to seek forgiveness and display heartfelt repentance for his actions and attitude, s/he was to be forgiven and accepted back into the church. Thus s/he would not be overly abused by Satan, whose authority s/he had temporarily come under by being cast out into the world (2 Cor. 2:10,11).

Your treatment of both the disfellowshipped and so called apostates is unjustifable in the real world. The only difference between how you treat them is that you give the disfellowshipped "another chance" if they become unquestioning JW drones again.

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.

You really haven't been listening. Or reading, I suppose. This is NOT our translation. It is footnote, putting down the direct translation from the ORIGINAL HEBREW. You CANNOT refute the original wording of the Bible. It would be like refuting the law of gravity because someone else interpreted it a different way.

Of course it's not. I said it's your translation. Meaning you, singular, not you with reference to the JW's as a whole. *Points to your previous post, referenced above.*

And as I said, your translation is flawed. It's not a direct, literal translation from the original Hebrew. You're using similar words with similar meanings individually, but together those small changes completly change the meaning of the sentance.

Just for reference..

Psalms 35:16
NWT: "Among the apostate mockers for a cake there was a grinding of their teeth even against me."
KJV: "With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth."

I suppose you're the one still not listening. Oh, and flawed analogy. I'd refute the flawed interpretation of the Law of Gravity, not the Law of Gravity itself. In this case, I'm refuting your (Plural) flawed translation of Psalms 35:16.

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.

Not necessarily. Someone who leaves the true religion (talking purely from my perspective, of course) for another which does not teach the true doctrine is nothing short of ungodly, for he does summarily not worship the same god. Therefore, he does not worship the true god, and is therefore ungodly.

I see we're working off two different interpretations of ungodly. Under yours, then yes, it would not directly imply athiesm. Under the definition I work from, it simply means "having no god", with of course a lot of connotations about morality and such that you tend to like throwing around.

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.

Concession accepted. And someone who mocks someone who is right is indeed a buffoon, so it really doesn't matter if you translate it as mockers or buffoons anyway. You can chop and change those two words to your pleasing, and it will mean the same thing.

It's no concession at all. Mockers is a word describing them by their undertaken actions. Buffoon is simply a descriptive word with no implications of their actions. That change, together with the change earlier, changes completly the meaning of the passage, as I noted above.

No, my criteria for a valid resources is one that gives whole truths rather than half triths. And that's at best with your 'source'.

Under your own conditions then, I suppose you're no valid resource. Neither is your NWT for that matter. It's a half truth at best to mistranslate something.

Oh, and if the SAB is giving "half triths", then kindly demonstrate this. All we have against it here is your opinion on that. If it's only telling half the story, you should have no problems rebutting the arguements, should you? Stop whining already.

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.

Oh, yes it is. And you just don't want to admit it, because you're afraid of being out - argued by a teenage fundie with mud - for - brains, as I'm sure you think of me.

No, unlike you, I admit my mistakes then I make them. I haven't made one here. Your definition is only part of the definition. Given how much you've left things out though, I can't say I'm suprised you decided to do a little snipping.

Then again, you're not a JW Elder are you? Hell, you just admitted as such. Here's something you'd never see otherwise then. The full version

Apostasy.

Apostasy is a standing away from, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment; it involves teaching false doctrines, supporting or promoting false religion and its holidays or interfaith activities. (Deut. 13:13, 15; Josh. 22:22, ftn.; Acts 21:21, ftn.; 2 Cor. 6:14, 15, 17, 18; 2. John 7, 9, 10; Rev. 18:4)

Those with sincere doubts should be helped, dealt with mercifully. (Jude 22, 23; w82 9/1 pp. 20-1;w80 8/1 pp. 21-2)

Apostasy includes action taken against true worship of Jehovah or his established order among his dedicated people. (Jer. 17:13; 23:15; 28:15, 16; 2 Thess. 2:9, 10)

Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates.

If it is learned that a person has taken up association with another religious organization, the matter should be investigated, and if verified, a committee should be formed.

If it is clearly established that the person has joined another religion and intends to remain with it, the elders would make a brief announcement to the congregation that such- one has disassociated himself. (w86 10/15 p. 31 )

Working secularly for a false religious organization could put one in a position similar to that of one preaching false doctrine. (2 Cor. 6:14-16)

Celebrating a false religious holiday would be similar to performing any other act of false worship. (Jer. 7:16-19)

The Bible condemns the following:

Causing divisions and promoting sects.

This would be deliberate action disrupting the unity of the congregation or undermining the confidence of the brothers in Jehovah's arrangement.

It may involve or lead to apostasy. (Rom. 16: 17, 18; Titus 3:10, 11 )

The practice of spiritism. (Deut. 18:9-13; I Cor. 10: 21, 22; Gal. 5:20 )

Idolatry. ( I Cor. 6:9, 10; 10:14 )

Idolatry includes the possession and use of images and pictures that are employed in false religion.

Drunkenness. (I Cor. 5:11; 6:9,10; it-l p. 656)

Stealing, thievery, fraud. (Lev. 6:2, 4; I Cor. 6:9, 10; Eph. 4:28; it-l p. 870)

Deliberate, malicious lying; bearing false witness. (Prov. 6: 16, 19; Col. 3:9; Rev. 22:15; it-2 pp. 244-5)

Reviling; slander. (Lev. 19:16; I Cor. 6:10; it-l pp. 989-91; it-2 pp. 801-2)

Obscene speech. (Eph. 5:3-5; Col. 3:8 )

Failure to abstain from blood. (Gen. 9:4; Acts 15:20, 28, 29)

Greed‹gambling, extortion. (I Cor. 5:10, 11; 6:10; I Tim. 3:8; it-l pp. 1005-6)

Adamant refusal to provide materially for one's ovn family‹leaving wife and children destitute when having the
means to provide. ( 1 Tim. 5:8; w88 11/1 pp. 22-3; km
9/73 p. 8 )

Nonneutral activitics. ( Isa. 2:4;John 6:15; 17:16)

Fits of anger, violence. (Prov. 22:24, 25; Mal. 2:16; Gal.
5:20)

Misuse of tobacco or addictive drugs (2 Cor. 7:1; Mark
15:23; Rev. 21:8, Int.; 22:15, Int. )

Loose conduct. Term not restricted to sexual immorality.
(Gal. 5:19, Ref.. Bi., ftn.; 2 Pet. 2:7, Ref.. Bi., ftn.; w83
3/15 p. 31; w73 9/15 pp. 574-6; it-2 p. 264)

SUMMARY: There are varying degrees of wrongdoing.
At times there may have been an overlapping of sins, and
this must be discerned in order to determine the proper
Scriptural view of a person's conduct. In all cases, elders
should carefully weigh each situation or circumstance.
They need to find out what actually occurred, the extent
and nature of misconduct, intent and motive, frequency
or practice, and so forth. Good judgment, reasonableness,
and balance are necessary as elders assess conduct in the
light of the Scriptures.

Hey, look, according to that, I'm an Apostate. Joy.

Anyway, one minor note frpm that textbook.

A copy of this textbook is issued to each appointed elder, and he may retain it as long as he continues to serve as an elder in any congregation. At such time as he should cease to serve in that capacity, his copy of the book must be handed over to the Congregation Service Committee, since this publication is congregation property. No copies are to be made of any part of this publication.

Don't expect me to tell you where I got a hold of this thing BTW. I could get a copy together for you if you like though. Of course, that doesn't hold for the non-JW's here. Just PM me and I'll give you the goodies.

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.

Ah, yes. I wondered when this would come up. Panorama did a terrible job of documenting this. So much so that I can give at least 10 fallacies with that programme off the top of my head.

Love how you're snipping out all my criticisms of logical fallacies BTW.

In any case, if you could do it off the top of your head, why didn't you? And while you're at it, what about all the other investigations into the issue? The "Today" program here in Australia did a great job on it, as have others.
Frankly, if your cult hadn't mishandled everything thanks to that idiotic 2 witness rule, then there wouldn't be any need for organisations like Silent Lambs, would there?

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.

And after an almost intelligent post, you revert to untrue propagandist nonsense, like you have in all of your posts to me so far. Families are untouched by disfellowshipping. They're FAMILY. It would be evil to split them up over such things. The congregation, however, is supposed to remain out of contact with those who are disfellowshipped, as is per a scripture in Deuteronomy. My refuting of all of these points was, in fact, delivered in that 'load of c**p' argument that you didn't read.

"Display Christian Loyalty When a Relative is Disfellowshipped", August 2002 edition of your own Kingdom Ministry. Read it.

Perhaps instead of assuming that I mustn't have read what you said because I continue to disagree, perhaps you should start actually reading what I said and stop making partial quotes.

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.

Preaching.

Concession Accepted.

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.

Think what you like. Tell us never to call again when we knock on your door, and we'll register you as a 'do not call'. It's that simple.

Liar.

From the Authorized Site of the Public Affairs Office of Jehovah's Witnesses

Why do you continue to call on people who are not interested in your faith?
We do not force our message on others but recognize that people's circumstances change. They move. They may be too busy to listen one day but will gladly take the time another day. One member of a household may not be interested, but others may be. People may have new problems or situations to deal with, stimulating a spiritual interest that was not there before.

I guess that explains why they kept calling even after we kept sending them away. Though I must admit, it was funny seeing my 9 year old brother give them the whole Easter Bunny analogy (I'm going to have to relate that story fully one of these days. Absolutly classic). And those phamphlets made great fire starters for the next BBQ.


Well, I've got a Semester Final to study for now, so I'll leave it at that. My apologies to anyone other than the fundi who actually read through everything there. I know, it's painful, isn't it? Sometimes, I don't know why I bother.

[Wicked Pilot]

That's gotta be the longest post I have ever seen. Someone give this man a metal!

[Archaic`]

I'll assume that was being sarcastic.

*Sighs* I really need to learn to be more concise...

[LadyBarbara]

According to the bible

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Armageddon will occur in the autumn of 1975, fully 6000 years into God's seventh day, his rest day.

Now did you stone the editor of the watchtower to death or?

I'm afraid your information is incorrect. I have every issue of The Watchtower from 1968 and that sentence does not appear in any issue including the one of April 1st.

[data_link]

Why did you ressurect this thread?

[Andrew J.]

Holy shit, this thread has been dead for months.

[Durandal]

According to the bible

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Armageddon will occur in the autumn of 1975, fully 6000 years into God's seventh day, his rest day.

Now did you stone the editor of the watchtower to death or?

I'm afraid your information is incorrect. I have every issue of The Watchtower from 1968 and that sentence does not appear in any issue including the one of April 1st.

And, of course, you've memorized them all? Puh-leeze.

[LadyBarbara]

Originally posted by data_link:
Why did you ressurect this thread?

Because I read something that was totally and completely incorrect and I wanted to rectify it, as much as everyone else does around here when someone dares to contradict their point of view. Also, I felt like it. So deal.

Originally posted by Durandal:
And, of course, you've memorized them all? Puh-leeze.

No, dear. I have each issue bound according to year in books. It's called reading.

[data_link]

What year were these books purchased? Because, given the historical honesty of the Watchtower, it seems probable that if they were purchased after 1975 that line would have been edited out of them.

Because I read something that was totally and completely incorrect and I wanted to rectify it, as much as everyone else does around here when someone dares to contradict their point of view. Also, I felt like it. So deal.

Most of the people around here are also smart enough to realize the difference between nitpicking and a meaningful argument. Sadly, what you are doing is nitpicking. Stop it. Now.

[Colonel Olrik]

LadyBarbara, are you a JW or alike? If yes, you are welcome to debating your ideas against science, logic and facts. Pick a theme (Creationism, origins of the Earth and Universe, secular morality, etc), and we'll debate.

If not, I'm sorry. I just don't know anybody who owns all the volumes of that particular paper.

[Wicked Pilot]

No, dear. I have each issue bound according to year in books.

And to think of all those poor trees who were cut down to make such worthless garbage. The world has a bigger need for firewood and toilet paper.

[Durandal]

No, dear. I have each issue bound according to year in books.

And to think of all those poor trees who were cut down to make such worthless garbage. The world has a bigger need for firewood and toilet paper.

The Watchtower is as flammable as the Bible or any other book. Who knows, maybe you could get a decent high off the holy fumes. Then maybe those books would start pulling their weight. I'd imagine that it wouldn't be too nice to wipe your ass with the pages, though. They're rather coarse and thin. But, if you're out in the wild, you do what you have to ...

[neoolong]

No, dear. I have each issue bound according to year in books.

And to think of all those poor trees who were cut down to make such worthless garbage. The world has a bigger need for firewood and toilet paper.

The Watchtower is as flammable as the Bible or any other book. Who knows, maybe you could get a decent high off the holy fumes. Then maybe those books would start pulling their weight. I'd imagine that it wouldn't be too nice to wipe your ass with the pages, though. They're rather coarse and thin. But, if you're out in the wild, you do what you have to ...

But there's so much crap on it, I doubt there would be room for more.

[Durandal]

Good point.