The JW debate

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 5:15 pm

Well, I have been acused of being one, and have read many negative comments on this BB concerning those who are one.

Since so many have felt obligated to make their opinions known about Jehovah's Witnesses, I thought the following info regarding a new documentary about JW's would be enlightening, and encourage new comments.

From the producers of KNOCKING:

AWARDS
KNOCKING has played at a number of film festivals and has won several awards. It will be broadcast nationally in the United States on the PBS series \"Independent Lens\" in May 2007. Get your own sneak preview by ordering the DVD now.
Film Festival awards:
*Best Documentary, Jury Award, 2006 USA Film Festival (Dallas)
*Best Documentary, Jury Award, 2006 Trenton Film Festival (New Jersey)
*Best Documentary, Audience Award, 2006 Indianapolis International Film
Festival
*Best First Film, Jury Award, 2006 Long Island International Film Expo (New York)
*Official Selection, 2006 Cleveland International Film Festival

WHAT WAS WATCHTOWER'S ROLE?
The New York-based Watchtower Society directs the worldwide ministry of Jehovah's Witnesses. It publishes the Watchtower magazine and other religious books and journals distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses. Viewers who would like to know more about the role of the Watchtower Society in the production of KNOCKING may call Watchtower at 718-560-5600 (weekdays between 8am and 5pm Eastern time). KNOCKING is an independent film production. Watchtower cooperated with the film's producers, providing them with archival material, granting interviews and permitting their cameras access to Watchtower's headquarters. KNOCKING's camera crews were also allowed to film at a district convention of Jehovah's Witnesses, inside local Kingdom Halls and accompany Witnesses in the door-to-door visitation work. Watchtower had no editorial control over the program, but the producers provided an advance courtesy screening of the completed film.

WHAT ARE VIEWERS SAYING?
\"I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I think KNOCKING would be a favorable screening for Witnesses and non-Witnesses alike. I had the pleasure of being at the screening of your documentary in Trenton, New Jersey at our city's recent film festival. I found KNOCKING to be fresh, enlightening and fair.\"
Terri Taylor
New Jersey

\"KNOCKING was a knockout! It was fair, honest and factual. You couldn't have picked better subjects than the Kempler and Thomas families. Best of all, it was told by non-witnesses. Congratulations.\"
Ellen Williams and Anna Turner
Long Island, New York

\"We wanted to let you all know that we really appreciated the fair depiction of Jehovah's Witnesses contained in your film. Four of us from Cleveland, Ohio traveled to Flint, Michigan to see it, and it was wonderful. We all cried as we watched the movie! Once again, thank you for an accurate and interesting portrayal of Jehovah's Witnesses. We look forward to seeing the DVD.\"
Marla Roberts, Lashella Carroll, Sonya Parker and Paulette Murray
Cleveland, Ohio

\"I just got in from the Long Island screening of Knocking and I had to write to express my feelings. It was wonderful! As one of Jehovah's witnesses for 35 years, I was a little wary when I first heard about this film. I've been used to inaccurate reports from the media over the years and was thrilled to experience your fair and accurate documentary. I shed a few tears during the sections dealing with Seth Thomas and his father, and of course the experiences of Joseph Kempler. Thank you for your film and for being fair and accurate about our beliefs and way of life.\"
Alick C. Samuels
Cambria Heights, New York

\"I was very impressed with your film and its four perspectives: 1) the blood issue; 2) our relationship with non-JW family members; 3) JWs & the Nazis; 4) JWs and civil rights. The delivery of these very important issues was nicely demonstrated in the film. When I returned home I immediately told my friends and family about this wonderful film. Thank you for your fairness and good research.\"
Helen Cole
New York

\"Thank you so much for giving our beliefs a fair shake.\"
Luanne Longan
Retired English professor, Gadsden State Community College

WHAT ARE PROFESSIONALS SAYING?
\"Riveting and illuminating. KNOCKING takes us inside the world of Jehovah's Witnesses in a way that is utterly surprising and moving.\"
-- Anderson Cooper, CNN

\"A compelling documentary. KNOCKING affirms the principle that in a free society, the protection of religious liberty and the advancement of personal freedoms need not be competing values.\"
-- Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union

\"A thoughtful telling of an important, often-overlooked story about essential American issues.\"
-- Jon Meacham, Managing Editor, Newsweek

\"KNOCKING contains a wonderful surprise: It shows how science and religion, with worldviews that rarely overlap, can reach a common goal - the use of less blood in medicine - even if for very different reasons.\"
-- Arthur Caplan, Chair, Department of Medical Ethics, University of Pennsylvania

\"An absorbing account of a misunderstood religious movement and its relationship to contemporary culture. KNOCKING raises important questions about how we know and how we consider the religious \"other,\" and through its own presentation, causes us to re-think the way media represent them.\"
-- Stewart M. Hoover, Director, Center for Media, Religion and Culture, University of Colorado

SPECIAL DVD FEATURES
The DVD contains a 63-minute film festival version that is 10 minutes longer than what will be broadcast nationally in the United States on PBS in May 2007. The feature presentation is Closed Captioned in English. The DVD is \"All Region\" and will play on newer DVD players in Europe and Australia (it will not be compatible every DVD player outside North America, especially older models).

We've spent many months putting together lots of extra features on the DVD. There are more than 3 hours of additional material, including:
* Short film about Jehovah's Witnesses and free speech cases at the U.S. Supreme Court
* Behind-the-scenes interviews with the directors
* Segment on \"Street Witnessing\"
* Special lecture series. The lecture series features expanded interviews with leading experts in the areas of civil liberties, medical ethics and Holocaust history. Each expert comments on the contributions of Jehovah's Witnesses. There are also rare, official interviews with representatives of the world headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses
* Study and discussion guide. A printed 48-page booklet comes with each DVD, providing in-depth historical and social analysis. Extra copies can be opened and printed from the DVD on your computer.

If the above is true (and I have no reason to belive that it is not), this should be the most honest assesment of this group ever produced - but I haven't seen it yet, so . . .

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:37 pm

That whole blood thing just makes JW a laugh-out-loud bunch of card-carrying nut cases.

Go on - bleed to death - it's evolution in action! YAY!

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:06 am

If it's independant and honest, why were all those reviews from Witnesses?

Was this film made BY Witnesses? Editorial control isn't needed in such cases.

Candy Mountain is a happy happy place.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:05 am

Shoku wrote:...If the above is true (and I have no reason to belive that it is not), this should be the most honest assesment of this group ever produced - but I haven't seen it yet, so . . .

And if the following is true I think they are proof that man can evolve from the Ostrich!

A 2000 issue of The Watchtower stated, "Some apostates are increasingly using the internet to spread false information about Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, when sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda. Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking."

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:25 am

I don't allow JW's to prostylise on my door step so why would I want them on my tv screen?

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:52 am

And I still dont know what Jehovah's Witnesses are. Would someone care to explain?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:07 am

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wh ... gle+Search

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:36 pm

I still don't understand why Jehovah's Witnesses are seen in any worse light than any other Christian denomination. People don't give them a chance out of ignorance.

My parents are JWs, and I was raised one, though I am no longer one. They've always been honest, fair, kind, accepting, generous and respectable people. More than I can say about the majority of Catholics and Protestants I know.

People hear about their stance on blood and think they're bonkers. Well, the stance on blood is just another belief, and while it's a little out of touch, it's no reason to crucify (for lack of a better word) them.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:58 pm

As a kid living in the UK, i remember these square headed, blonde Osmonds looking wannabees constantly knocking at our door, being so sugary sweet but friggin aggressive at the same time. That was the first time i'd met Americans and it clouded my view of them for years.

When i finally got to travel round the States i realised i was right....you're all phucked in the head.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:07 pm

Blood what? Oh, no transfusions. I thought you meant that if they got a cut, they weren't allowed to stop the bleeding. I was gonna say, if that's the case, then fine, we need less of those types.

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:02 pm

roid wrote:If it's independant and honest, why were all those reviews from Witnesses?

Was this film made BY Witnesses? Editorial control isn't needed in such cases.

Candy Mountain is a happy happy place.

The makers of the film are not JW's. You can read all about it at www.knocking.org

The first quotes do seem to be from JW's, but I think the "Professional" quotes are not.

Bias of any kind can be damaging. Ignorance promotes animosity. Hopefully this film will help eliminate at least some of the misconceptions and inaccurate conclusions - most of which are gleefully perpetuated here on the DBB by minds lacking true insight.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:04 pm

I think they were only perpetuated wrongly because of interaction with Lobber?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:40 pm

Beowulf wrote:I still don't understand why Jehovah's Witnesses are seen in any worse light than any other Christian denomination. People don't give them a chance out of ignorance.

I don't because I know the differences with doctrine. They are very different at the very root.

My wife on the other hand will invite them in and debate for hours. She seldom gets anywhere, but she tries and is very pleasant about it.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 2:41 pm

Beowulf wrote:People don't give them a chance out of ignorance.

Tried that once. As with all fantics, they don't process what you say and they don't question their beliefs. Wasted 4hrs but learned a valuable lession -- it's impossible to have a dialog w/ fanatics.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:00 pm

I still don't understand why Jehovah's Witnesses are seen in any worse light than any other Christian denomination. People don't give them a chance out of ignorance.

I agree. Dogmatism is dogmatism.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:13 pm

Personally, I think most JW's -- like most Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Atheists, Jews, Buddhists, Agnostics, and any other group you can name -- are generally good people. It doesn't mean their beliefs or methods for seeking knowledge are correct, though.

My main problem with the JW's I've interacted with directly is their method of argument. I don't so much mind the whack doctrines as the way they go about developing / supporting them. They tend to focus very heavily on prooftexting, often from very obscure \"Joe Schmoe's 1926 Polish Bible\" type translations, and (as Will noted) are often woefully unaware of \"apostate\" arguments and ideas. Granted, you can make this same argument about virtually any Christian or pseudoChristian denomination, but in my experience the JW's do it more consistantly than most other groups.

I'm also not a fan of the organization itself -- the sort of cultic peer pressure that's applied to those who dare study alternative views is just plain scary (IIRC, we have a couple people on this forum who speak from experience there.) I think Catholics have some beliefs that are just as weird as the weirder JW beliefs, but in my experience the Catholics who disagree or look for alternative views are generally still treated well.

Again, this doesn't mean JW's are bad people. I don't think JW's go to bed at night thinking \"man, I love spreading whack doctrine\" or anything like that. Their doctrine definitely isn't as weird as Mormon doctrine (with the whole fictional history of the Americas and all) and they do some admirable things because of their beliefs.

I still don't understand why Jehovah's Witnesses are seen in any worse light than any other Christian denomination.

You really don't understand why \"the masses\" would be offended and/or weirded out by a group that refuses blood transfusions, saluting the flag, serving in the military, etc?

I'm not saying those things are all wrong -- and if you know anything about Mennonites you should know we refuse to serve in the military as well. I'm just saying they're things that generally turn people off of the JW's. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.

When you combine those distinctive behaviors with the widespread belief that JW doctrine is whack, it's not hard to see why they're seen in a bad light.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:24 pm

One of my uncles has a wife that a lot of my extended family dubs \"The Murderer.\" Before she married my uncle and sucked him into the cult, she coerced her former husband, who had previously decided to receive a life-saving procedure that involved blood transfusion, into changing his mind, which, of course, directly resulted in his death. Maybe \"Jehovah\" approves of this sort of thing, but it should be fairly obvious why everyone else doesn't. Now some \"documentary\" is supposed to wash her hands of what she did?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:58 pm

I disagree with the JW's on their blood transfusion belief. I couldn't disagree with it more strongly. BUT, I admire them for having the guts to put their life on the line for what they believe.

I disagree with them about saluting the flag, but again, I admire them for being willing to risk jail rather than do something they think is wrong.

I admire the JW's for thier strong sense of missionary duty. Yeah, it's annoying, but so many people think that they OUGHT to share their faith, but seldom do it.

Now for the CON's. (besides doctrinal issues)

I don't like the fact that the JW's attempt to isolate the flock from any exposure to other doctrine. Many churches are guilty of this to a degree, but the JW's seem to take it further than most. And to incorporate this stance directly into doctrine. Truth should never be afraid of inquiry. If your doctrine cant stand up when exposed to other opinions, let it fall.

I find most difficult of all the way they treat anyone who leaves the JW faith. It's EXTREMLY difficult on families caught up in the entire \"shunning\" experience. It's an UGLY practice.

Overall, I think Christians are often guilty of treating JW's uncharitably. Mainly just because the JW's are \"Different\". It's hard to get people to listen to you when you openly despise them.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:48 pm

the only issue i have with JWs are stuff like this:

Will Robinson wrote:
A 2000 issue of The Watchtower stated, "Some apostates are increasingly using the internet to spread false information about Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, when sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda. Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking."

Lothar wrote:the sort of cultic peer pressure that's applied to those who dare study alternative views is just plain scary

all other issues i think are secondary to the cult like tactics mentioned above by Will & Lothar. If the JW members were free to read, watch, think, and talk to whomever they pleased then that would be a start. But they arn't, they cut themselves off from society, and actively avoid exposure to dissident views for fear of being excommunicated themselves!

It's true, they are
- Global Civil Liberty Defenders (defending Freedom* of Religion in courts all over the world.)
- Holocaust Martyrs (were treated worse than the Jews)
- and their insistance on blood-less treatments has encouraged Medical Development towards that end.

(* while their socially manipulative doctrines show no respect for Freedom of Thought and Association.)

I recall the last time i went Witnessing (man i hated witnessing). An Elder asked me if i could help him with a return-visit he had, a deep thinking young man who loved to talk about spirituality and existance, everything he said was kinda over the top of the Elder. So i went out with him one morning, and we met this young guy. I was introduced and we began talking, mostly just listening to the wild ideas this smiling young guy had. Excitedly the young thinker waxed poetic about life, the meaning of it all, the possabilitys... his eyes had this constant sparkle - he was a perfect hippy - full of awesome, ideas and unassuming love.

But i was there to break him, that's why i was there. To try to make him one of us. I look at him, i look at the Elder standing next to me. I'm standing there, listening, it's what i naturally do, i'm listening. I love what this guy is saying and my job is to stop him? To make him more like the boring ass Elder standing next to me. I know he's not gonna go for it... wait... why am i going for it? What the ★■◆● am i doing?

*ding*

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:16 am

roid - ding^2.

I was also raised a JW, my parents still are, though they're fairly liberal JWs. Clearly, I no longer am. For the same reasons.

My point isnt that people should give witnesses a chance as in listen to them or convert or whatever. It's just that it doesn't make sense to dog on a religion that has just as many obscure doctrines as the socially acceptable ones. Maybe it's my inner agnostic speaking, but I see a lot of JW doctrines in the same light as Catholic ones. They're bizarre, illogical, and they don't fit me. hence why I'm not a religious person. In the end, and I've said it before, it's about faith. If that isn't your bag, live and let live.

But yeah, I still go to meetings from time to time to make the folks happy. I'm technically not \"disfellowshipped\" (booted), I'm just \"inactive.\" Witnesses teach that people who are \"disfellowshipped\" aren't to be talked to or associated with. They teach that you shouldn't make close relationships with those who are not JWs themselves. That is their most cultish practice, but I think, like every religion, that kind of stuff is carried out only by the extremists.

Going back to my personal experience, I still hang out with my Witness buddies on a fairly regular basis, despite my inactivity. We watch football, have some beers, talk about girls - they're normal people. They always give me the obligitory \"you should start coming to meetings more often, man\" but it's not them trying to convert me, it's out of legitimitely caring about my well-being. The more extreme witnesses whom I used to think were close friends of mine have completely turned their backs on me, but extremism in any form, in any aspect of life, is always going to lead to bad and unbalanced results.

We as a society always seem to pick out the oddballs and extremists and associate them with the general populus, and quite frankly, that isn't accurate. Not muslims are terrorists, not all catholic priests are pedophiles, and not all JWs are unbalanced whackos.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:29 am

My family is one of the extreme, the JW faith more than central to their lives - all pervasive. Father an Elder/Ministerial-Servant, Mother a regular-pioneer.
Beo you've really got me thinking. Perhaps if my upbringing was extreme then i'm overestimating how JWs react... maybe i can try a more optimistic outlook and reconnect with old JW aquaintences.

(this really complicates things)

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:55 pm

I don't like the JW, I knew a girl in the first grade, her name was Virginia, I wanted her to come to my birthday party but she couldn't because she was a JW.

Kill 'em all!!!

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:13 pm

I use to hide when the JW's came up our street because I didn't want them wasting my TV time. I got caught a few times mowing the lawn and had to listen to the talk and take the flyer. Even telling them I was Catholic didn't seem to deter them.

But ever since the twisted religion in the middle east became center stage in my mind, I began to think about how respectful the JW's were. I don't hide from them anymore. They can knock on our door anytime.

Bee

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:36 pm

I don't really think of the JW's as anything above the Mormons, basically Christians with more stuff added. A little more peaceful, but whatever.

At least Mormons are funny, \"Hey, the first man & woman lived in Mississippi!\"

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:26 am

roid wrote:My family is one of the extreme, the JW faith more than central to their lives - all pervasive. Father an Elder/Ministerial-Servant, Mother a regular-pioneer.
Beo you've really got me thinking. Perhaps if my upbringing was extreme then i'm overestimating how JWs react... maybe i can try a more optimistic outlook and reconnect with old JW aquaintences.

(this really complicates things)

I've found it differs from congregation to congregation.

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:23 am

I've known and worked with many JW's over the years and I have to say I found almost all of them annoying, very strange, and at times overbearing with their constant preaching, especially whenever they tried to convince me my views on religion were wrong because their religion was \"right\".

What business is it of theirs in what I think? What an inane thing!
What gives them the right to come to my house on a Sunday morning while I am trying to enjoy the last hours of my weekend and start lecturing me about my views on religion, without first learning what they are?

Usually I invite them in for beer and an assortment of recreational drugs to further discuss their views, (this works every time to get rid of them) or I tell them that I'll be letting out a large, protective, and territorial dog about now so maybe they just might want to leave the property soon, (works well too).

Many individuals were just plain brainwashed. Some really odd views were presented to me... and some of the \"study\" sessions and \"meetings\" described to me supported that. How many times has the Watchtower called for the end of the World now?
Get Real
I myself have been told the World is ending and of the Rapture and the whole spiel on seeing Jebus on several occasions over the years, by JW's in very different areas of the Country. Just plain too weird for me mang.

I believe that as long as its not harming or bothering others, common courtesy and tolerance of other peoples views of religion are in order, (banging on peeps doors and squawking that your gonna be wasted in some world ending doom unless you convert is not my definition of courteous).

I also don't have to necessarily believe in ONE right religion either. I take snippets of what I deem wisdom or good practice from many Religions.

Those that teach that they are right and the rest are all wrong simply because you don't believe in their views are in my opinion ignorant and manipulating.

My 2¢

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:55 am

Canuck wrote:How many times has the Watchtower called for the end of the World now?
Get Real

1000-JAN-1: Many Christians in Europe had predicted the end of the world on this date. As the date approached, Christian armies waged war against some of the Pagan countries in Northern Europe. The motivation was to convert them all to Christianity, by force if necessary, before Christ returned in the year 1000. Meanwhile, some Christians had given their possessions to the Church in anticipation of the end. Fortunately, the level of education was so low that many citizens were unaware of the year. They did not know enough to be afraid. Otherwise, the panic might have been far worse than it was. Unfortunately, when Jesus did not appear, the church did not return the gifts. Serious criticism of the Church followed. The Church reacted by exterminating some heretics.

rofl. That's a great read.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:29 pm

1936: Herbert W Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, predicted that the Day of the Lord would happen sometime in 1936. When the prediction failed, he made a new estimate: 1975.

The video \"Called to be Free\" chronicles the way the Worldwide Church of God responded to Herbert W Armstrong's failed predictions.

Would be nice if other groups responded to their \"prophets\" failed prophesies the same way. (I notice Pat Robertson is on the list in 1982... why does anyone listen to this guy any more?)

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:36 pm

1346 and later: The black plague spread across Europe, killing one third of the population. This was seen as the prelude to an immediate end of the world. Unfortunately, the Christians had previously killed a many of the cats, fearing that they might be familiars of Witches. The fewer the cats, the more the rats. It was the rat fleas that spread the black plague.

I like the irony in this one.

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:46 pm

ROFL, was just talking to a friend who's buddy fell off a ladder and broke his ribs and legs. He was laid up on the couch on Sunday when some JW's came knocking. He basically screwed around with them for a while and then came up with a brilliant idea.

He said, \"Since I'm all laid up like this and can't get anywhere without assistance right now, could you two please bring in that cord of wood out back and stack it over by the fireplace?\"

They hesitated and mentioned that they were in their nice clothes, and he piped up, \"Whats the matter? Don't want to do God's dirty work?\" Got his wood stacked!

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:23 pm

It's cruel to take advantage of the gullible!

Question is: Did they do so to avoid their god's judgement, or whatever, or just because they are truly helpful? Would they still have helped if they weren't JW's?

Did he at least let them get something to drink afterwards?

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:46 pm

Canuck wrote:and he piped up, "Whats the matter? Don't want to do God's dirty work?" Got his wood stacked!

Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me where some people derive there arguments. Stacking someone's wood is not "God's dirty work." Helping someone in need is a Christian ethic, encouraged by Jesus, but so is having an understanding heart for other people. Yeah, your friend was hurt and needed help, but perhaps he could have been more understanding himself, and not so selfish: I would not make someone do dirty work while dressed in their sunday best - perhaps if he had been more pleasant, the JW's would have been glad to go and change clothes, then come back to help him. But since this is just hearsay, there's no real point in arguing the situation - everyone has motives. Which is why Jesus said: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open."

I myself have been told the World is ending and of the Rapture and the whole spiel on seeing Jebus on several occasions over the years, by JW's in very different areas of the Country.

As far as I know, JW's do not believe in the Rapture.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:31 pm

Shoku wrote:
Canuck wrote:and he piped up, "Whats the matter? Don't want to do God's dirty work?" Got his wood stacked!
Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me where some people derive there arguments. Stacking someone's wood is not "God's dirty work."

I think the JWs were doing it so that the person would be taken back (slightly) by their act of kindness, and would be less hesitant to join them. I don't think it was a God thing at all.

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:37 pm

He's just a lazy dick that likes to make fun of them.
He got his wood stacked, and if they are dum enough to do it good on him. He probably offered them beer or whisky if they asked for a drink.

And I'm pretty sure the JW's I've met were talking of the Rapture... Yup;
http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness8.htm

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:05 pm

TIGERassault wrote:
Shoku wrote:
Canuck wrote:and he piped up, "Whats the matter? Don't want to do God's dirty work?" Got his wood stacked!
Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me where some people derive there arguments. Stacking someones wood is not "God's dirty work."
I think the JWs were doing it so that the person would be taken back (slightly) by their act of kindness, and would be less hesitant to join them. I don't think it was a God thing at all.

TIGERassault sees the light!

This dude is a professional alcoholic pill popping bum who still sucks money from his Mother, lives in her house... etc. I call him Mr. Percocet. He's my friend's buddy definitely not mine. His dream dates pick glass out of their legs and have tattoos and racetrack marks. Not kidding. We were taking bets recently that a kitten he acquired would either be eaten or eating him one day.

And the more I read on that religion site the more I shake my head. Its like, "No No! This is the correct version of death and destruction and only our people have the right tickets to float away and be saved..."

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:37 pm

TIGERassault wrote:I think the JWs were doing it so that the person would be taken back (slightly) by their act of kindness, and would be less hesitant to join them. I don't think it was a God thing at all.

I wouldn't presume to read someone elses motives from so far away with that little info. They could have just been very nice people trying to do the right thing. We don't know enough about them to know if thier motives were "nice" or not.

I think we ARE safe in saying the guy they were visiting was NOT nice, but then that is why they were visiting him.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:59 am

I was raised as a witness, and I'm still close to the religion. There's a few things here that need clarification. First of all, Witnesses don't believe in the rapture. As a matter of fact, the Witnesses beliefs come purely from bible doctrine. Even the issue of saluting the flag. Debating about them over the internet would be pointless and time wasting and I'm not into bible beating anyway since it's a waste of time, especially on the net. But there are some things I can clarify. And I'll expound on my own personal relation to the religion.

Inactive VS Disfellowshipping - Inactive witnesses are just that. Inactive. They aren't shunned, and as a matter of fact, they are warmly encouraged. When a person is disfellowshipped, it's for a reason, and it's a disciplinary measure. You're not banned from coming, but interaction with other witnesses is very much discouraged. This is actually done to keep the congregation as morally clean as possible. If you have someone doing drugs, crime, or being sexually immoral, what do you think would happen if an unrepentant person were allowed to interact as normal with other members? A drop of wine won't ruin a barrel of poison, but a drop of poison will ruin a bottle of wine. There is interaction with disfellowshipped members, but that interaction is from the Elders who work with that individual to get reinstated (If he or she is interested). I won't point any fingers at any particular religions in this post, but when I was young adult and took a leave from religion, I saw things from the outside and in a lot of areas, I saw VERY lax views on morals within various organizations. (I.E. It's okay as long as you keep putting money in that tray). It really amazed me how many religions out there will just \"let things fly\". Which is probably a good reason why many people who leave the witnesses don't deal with any other religion at all.

As far as the blood issue, I love how the media loves to make it seem like JW's are crazed lunatics. But plain and simple, God's word commands that we stay away from blood as stated at Acts 15:28, 29. Many Christian religions ignore it altogether, or make light of it due to modern interpretation and advances in science. Throughout the bible, you can also see the blood is treated as sacred. Even for Witnesses, that decision is not easy to make when it comes up, but that's where your faith in God comes in. Is there really faith if you ignore bible teachings out of fear? If I have faith that God can resurrect me, then I have no problem adhering to his direction. If I feel that God isn't going to come through on his part of the bargain, then oh well. Also, Witnesses have had a large role in the technology of bloodless transfusions, and transfusions requiring certain components of blood without the part of blood that technically makes it blood. This link actually provides some really good information on their beliefs relating to blood as well as information from the medical industry. It's interesting to note that even non-witnesses refuse blood for various other reasons. So it's not like they are just wishing for and choosing death, it's just that the intake of blood in one or all of it's 4 primary components violates biblical doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27 ... procedures

As far as the preaching and door to door, yea, it can seem like it sucks. But I guess there are many worse things than someone showing up at my door with positive news. People felt the same way about Noah, the apostle Paul, various prophets, and the list goes on. But the fact of the matter is that there's a lot of people who want to learn more about the bible, but don't know where to start. Believe me, it takes a LOT of strength to go door to door preaching though. As far as the issue of \"I have my own religion, etc...\" that would be suited towards a different topic. As far as the stacking of wood for the guy with the leg issue, that's just how most Witnesses are.

As far as questioning and refining their own beliefs, Witnesses do that constantly. And as a matter of fact, throughout the years, there are commonly refinements to the JW doctrine when new information is discovered or something was realized through deep study of the scriptures.

I also don't have to necessarily believe in ONE right religion either. I take snippets of what I deem wisdom or good practice from many Religions.

This is something that I wanted to bring out though. There are many, many religions out there, but it's obvious that they all aren't the correct one. I find it hard to believe that there are several gods looking down upon us. Jehovah, Buddha, Zeus, Apophis, Ra, Anubis, etc.. all competing for \"God Kudos points\" among humans. Jews believe in their thing, Christians believe in their thing, Buddists, etc... but I find it interesting that among Christians, there is the bible, but you have many interpretations of what the bible means. You have many customs that exist in one religion and not the others, which I find interesting. Although I will agree that there are many teachings in various religions that can improve daily life. But I like to look at each religion as a whole.

I find it hard to believe that there is one God who is taking many forms and creating a different set of rules for different groups, with some of those rules contradicting the others.

This would lead to a logical conclusion that there is one right path, or no path at all. In English, that means that there should be one that is in fact right, or all religion in general is false and merely must a method to subdue and and sometimes take advantage of people.

There is another point I wanted to add though. When I was young, I thought the religion was very \"restrictive\". At times I hated it because I thought I was missing out. I steered clear of it when I hit 20 and moved out of the home, but after a while, I did come to realize that even though it may have \"seemed\" restrictive, it was just merely protective and beneficial. Heck, I felt the same way about school and math class, but it helped down the road. I was also pretty irked at my mother for what I had always percieved as misinterpretations or just plain being a zealot. To tell you the truth though, just about every organization is going to have someone that's \"over the top\" from time to time, whether it's religion or your friendly neighborhood homeowners association. In my mid twenties, I looked back and made the determination that the benefits far outweighed what I \"percieved\" as the negative. Life has been quite a bit less hectic since I made that decision.

Great topic Shoku!

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:58 am

That point you made about \"a drop of poison spoiling the wine\" is somewhat intriguing to me, especially in light of Christ's own actions in the Gospels. Christ made no attempt to shun sinners or stay away from them; in fact, he interacted with the outcasts of society on a daily basis. There are numerous Gospel passages that show Jesus sharing meals with sinners (see Nicodemus), talking to them, and even sympathizing with what they're going through. In light of that, doesn't the whole idea of \"shunning\" seem rather...hypocritical? I know that my own views on religious faith are substantially different from your own, but from where I'm sitting, shutting yourself off from those who sin would feel like alienating yourself from the real world. Everyone sins, to some degree or another; it's a fact of our human condition. Wouldn't it better follow the Christian ideal to talk with those you call sinners, to interact with them, and to understand where they're coming from? How can you live a truly Christian life if you completely shut yourself off from those who don't act in the same way you do?

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:30 pm

Top Gun wrote:That point you made about "a drop of poison spoiling the wine" is somewhat intriguing to me, especially in light of Christ's own actions in the Gospels. Christ made no attempt to shun sinners or stay away from them; in fact, he interacted with the outcasts of society on a daily basis. There are numerous Gospel passages that show Jesus sharing meals with sinners (see Nicodemus), talking to them, and even sympathizing with what they're going through. In light of that, doesn't the whole idea of "shunning" seem rather...hypocritical? I know that my own views on religious faith are substantially different from your own, but from where I'm sitting, shutting yourself off from those who sin would feel like alienating yourself from the real world. Everyone sins, to some degree or another; it's a fact of our human condition. Wouldn't it better follow the Christian ideal to talk with those you call sinners, to interact with them, and to understand where they're coming from? How can you live a truly Christian life if you completely shut yourself off from those who don't act in the same way you do?

Shunning is a common practice of many Christian groups, not just Jehovah's Witnesses. To help answer your inquiry in the case of JW's, here's the section on Expelling from their "Insight On The Scriptures" publication (a Bible Encyclopeadia):

EXPELLING

The judicial excommunication, or disfellowshipping, of delinquents from membership and association in a community or organization. With religious societies it is a principle and a right inherent in them and is analogous to the powers of capital punishment, banishment, and exclusion from membership that are exercised by political and municipal bodies. In the congregation of God it is exercised to maintain the purity of the organization doctrinally and morally. The exercise of this power is necessary to the continued existence of the organization and particularly so the Christian congregation. The congregation must remain clean and maintain God’s favor in order to be used by him and to represent him. Otherwise, God would expel or cut off the entire congregation.—Re 2:5; 1Co 5:5, 6.

Jehovah’s Action. Jehovah God took expelling, or disfellowshipping, action in numerous instances. He sentenced Adam to death and drove him and his wife Eve out of the garden of Eden. (Ge 3:19, 23, 24) Cain was banished and became a wanderer and a fugitive in the earth. (Ge 4:11, 14, 16) The angels that sinned were thrown into Tartarus, a condition of dense darkness in which they are reserved for judgment. (2Pe 2:4) Twenty-three thousand fornicators were cut off from Israel in one day. (1Co 10:8) Achan was put to death at Jehovah’s command for stealing that which was devoted to Jehovah. (Jos 7:15, 20, 21, 25) Korah the Levite along with Dathan and Abiram of the tribe of Reuben were cut off for rebellion, and Miriam was stricken with leprosy and eventually might have died in that condition if Moses had not pleaded for her. As it was, she was expelled from the camp of Israel under quarantine seven days.—Nu 16:27, 32, 33, 35; 12:10, 13-15.

Under the Mosaic Law. For serious or deliberate violations of God’s law given through Moses a person could be cut off, that is, put to death. (Le 7:27; Nu 15:30, 31) Apostasy, idolatry, adultery, eating blood, and murder were among the offenses carrying this penalty.—De 13:12-18; Le 20:10; 17:14; Nu 35:31.

Under the Law, for the penalty of cutting off to be carried out, evidence had to be established at the mouth of at least two witnesses. (De 19:15) These witnesses were required to be the first to stone the guilty one. (De 17:7) This would demonstrate their zeal for God’s law and the purity of the congregation of Israel and would also be a deterrent to false, careless, or hasty testimony.

The Sanhedrin and synagogues. During Jesus’ earthly ministry the synagogues served as courts for trying violators of Jewish law. The Sanhedrin was the highest court. Under Roman rule the Jews did not have the latitude of authority that they had enjoyed under theocratic government. Even when the Sanhedrin judged someone deserving of death, they could not always administer the death penalty, because of restrictions by the Romans. The Jewish synagogues had a system of excommunication, or disfellowshipping, that had three steps or three names. The first step was the penalty of nid·duy´, which was for a relatively short time, initially only 30 days. A person under this penalty was prohibited from enjoying certain privileges. He could go to the temple, but there he was restricted in certain ways, and all besides his own family were commanded to stay at a distance of 4 cubits (c. 2 m; 6 ft) from him. The second step was che´rem, meaning something devoted to God or banned. This was a more severe judgment. The offender could not teach or be taught in the company of others, nor could he perform any commercial transactions beyond purchasing the necessities of life. However, he was not altogether cast out of the Jewish organization, and there was a chance for him to come back. Finally, there was sham·mat·ta´´, an entire cutting off from the congregation. Some believe the last two forms of excommunication were undistinguishable from each other.

One who was cast out as wicked, cut off entirely, would be considered worthy of death, though the Jews might not have the authority to execute such a one. Nevertheless, the form of cutting off they did employ was a very powerful weapon in the Jewish community. Jesus foretold that his followers would be expelled from the synagogues. (Joh 16:2) Fear of being expelled, or “unchurched,” kept some of the Jews, even the rulers, from confessing Jesus. (Joh 9:22, ftn; 12:42) An example of such action by the synagogue was the case of the healed blind man who spoke favorably of Jesus.—Joh 9:34.

During the time of his earthly ministry, Jesus gave instructions as to the procedure to follow if a serious sin was committed against a person and yet the sin was of such a nature that, if properly settled, it did not need to involve the Jewish congregation. (Mt 18:15-17) He encouraged earnest effort to help the wrongdoer, while also safeguarding that congregation against persistent sinners. The only congregation of God in existence then was the congregation of Israel. ‘Speaking to the congregation’ did not mean that the entire nation or even all the Jews in a given community sat in judgment on the offender. There were older men of the Jews that were charged with this responsibility. (Mt 5:22) Offenders who refused to listen even to these responsible ones were to be viewed “just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector,” association with whom was shunned by the Jews.—Compare Ac 10:28.

Christian Congregation. Based on the principles of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Christian Greek Scriptures by command and precedent authorize expulsion, or disfellowshipping, from the Christian congregation. By exercising this God-given authority, the congregation keeps itself clean and in good standing before God. The apostle Paul, with the authority vested in him, ordered the expulsion of an incestuous fornicator who had taken his father’s wife. (1Co 5:5, 11, 13) He also exercised disfellowshipping authority against Hymenaeus and Alexander. (1Ti 1:19, 20) Diotrephes, however, was apparently trying to exercise disfellowshipping action wrongly.—3Jo 9, 10.

Some of the offenses that could merit disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation are fornication, adultery, homosexuality, greed, extortion, thievery, lying, drunkenness, reviling, spiritism, murder, idolatry, apostasy, and the causing of divisions in the congregation. (1Co 5:9-13; 6:9, 10; Tit 3:10, 11; Re 21:8) Mercifully, one promoting a sect is warned a first and a second time before such disfellowshipping action is taken against him. In the Christian congregation, the principle enunciated in the Law applies, namely, that two or three witnesses must establish evidence against the accused one. (1Ti 5:19) Those who have been convicted of a practice of sin are reproved Scripturally before the “onlookers,” for example, those who testified concerning the sinful conduct, so that they too may all have a healthy fear of such sin.—1Ti 5:20; see REPROOF.

The Christian congregation is also admonished by Scripture to stop socializing with those who are disorderly and not walking correctly but who are not deemed deserving of complete expulsion. Paul wrote the Thessalonian congregation concerning such: “Stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.”—2Th 3:6, 11, 13-15.

However, regarding any who were Christians but later repudiated the Christian congregation or were expelled from it, the apostle Paul commanded: “Quit mixing in company with” such a one; and the apostle John wrote: “Never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”—1Co 5:11; 2Jo 9, 10.

Those who have been expelled may be received back into the congregation if they manifest sincere repentance. (2Co 2:5-8) This also is a protection to the congregation, preventing it from being overreached by Satan in swinging from condoning wrongdoing to the other extreme, becoming harsh and unforgiving.—2Co 2:10, 11.

The JW debate

The JW debate

Re: The JW debate

Re: The JW debate