News1 min ago
Matthew 10:34 "think Not That I Am Come To Send Peace On Earth: I Came Not To Send Peace, But A Sword."
25 Answers
Interesting piece linked to here. Audio recording of a preacher addressing a JW convention this year and talking about disfellowshipping - a practice which I am sure i have seen JWs here deny happens.
I found the whole talk quite chilling.
http://
This would definitely be another question for those doorstep shocktroops of the JWs
I found the whole talk quite chilling.
http://
This would definitely be another question for those doorstep shocktroops of the JWs
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Some people maintain that religious people are suffering from a mental illness. This clip provides ample support for that position IMO.
Chilling was exactly the right word LG. The dispassionate way that this man is telling people that they must cut all ties with a family member betrays no trace of compassion or humanity.
This interpretation of a few words in a dusty book that no-one know who wrote is a travesty and completely negates JW's claims to occupy the moral high ground.
Chilling was exactly the right word LG. The dispassionate way that this man is telling people that they must cut all ties with a family member betrays no trace of compassion or humanity.
This interpretation of a few words in a dusty book that no-one know who wrote is a travesty and completely negates JW's claims to occupy the moral high ground.
Jim, I was a Christian, and thought I believed what the bible said – but that was when I listened to other people without question, and before I studied it for myself. (Few of the faithful ever read the bible in full - and the preachers only tell them the good bits!). However, the fundamental principle of the version of Christianity that I was taught was ‘love one another’ – in my opinion the finest piece of advice that any human being ever offered another. In the light of that and in answer to your question, if I still believed as I once did, his sermon would still prove as utterly abhorrent to me as it does now, and it would still fall flat on its face from the outset, simply because love does not form part of his odious, hate-filled, vengeful, selfish, agenda – and in my opinion ‘love’ is what Christianity should be about. If ‘evil’ exists in this world, that sermon is a prime example.
Incidentally, I still cling to that principle…. one of the few positive outcomes of religious indoctrination I think. ;o)
Incidentally, I still cling to that principle…. one of the few positive outcomes of religious indoctrination I think. ;o)
Not in the starting point, of course. Given the wrong starting points you can prove anything. But it seems to me that the gist of what he is saying is correct: If there is a God, you should follow Him above all other considerations, even those of your family.
That seemed to be what he was saying to me, anyway. I hope I'm wrong, so if you want to argue with me on my interpretation I'd welcome it.
That seemed to be what he was saying to me, anyway. I hope I'm wrong, so if you want to argue with me on my interpretation I'd welcome it.
I cannot answer for Naomi, Jim, but I am surprised you put your question that way. Why should we accept the hypothesis you suggest?
I will accept that the Preacher and the flock may well believe - they are the faithful, after all- but you know what? All that does is tell us that Jehovah is morally bankrupt, jealously demanding that his flock have loyalty to him even beyond the love of their own family. This is the same moral bankruptcy that god exhibits in the story where god demands that Abraham sacrifice his own son.Why should we love and admire a jealous god, so needy and self-centred,so desperate for our attention that they demand such sacrifices from their flock? God falls a very long way short of acceptable human moral standards, it seems to me, with this sort of emotional blackmail.
It is morally unacceptable behaviour. Repugnant, in fact.
Pascals Wager is the idea that it is best to profess a belief in god, just in case there might be one - A nonsence idea,given that god being omniscient would no fine well that you are lying.
Mine is diametrically opposite to that.It is best to deny god, even were they to be shown to exist, simply because they demand such morally bankrupt and restrictive behaviours from their believers, and give so little in return.
How can anyone wish to live a life of such restriction? How could anyone want to live a life where one is expected to endorse mysogyny, endorse inequality?
I will accept that the Preacher and the flock may well believe - they are the faithful, after all- but you know what? All that does is tell us that Jehovah is morally bankrupt, jealously demanding that his flock have loyalty to him even beyond the love of their own family. This is the same moral bankruptcy that god exhibits in the story where god demands that Abraham sacrifice his own son.Why should we love and admire a jealous god, so needy and self-centred,so desperate for our attention that they demand such sacrifices from their flock? God falls a very long way short of acceptable human moral standards, it seems to me, with this sort of emotional blackmail.
It is morally unacceptable behaviour. Repugnant, in fact.
Pascals Wager is the idea that it is best to profess a belief in god, just in case there might be one - A nonsence idea,given that god being omniscient would no fine well that you are lying.
Mine is diametrically opposite to that.It is best to deny god, even were they to be shown to exist, simply because they demand such morally bankrupt and restrictive behaviours from their believers, and give so little in return.
How can anyone wish to live a life of such restriction? How could anyone want to live a life where one is expected to endorse mysogyny, endorse inequality?
Which hypothesis?
I think I'm in danger here of looking like I suddenly believe in God again. That's not what I was driving at at all. Rather, it seemed to me like his argument was reasonable if you assume the existence of this God with the Bible being His scriptures, so in fact, the way you are putting things,
"...that Jehovah is morally bankrupt, jealously demanding that his flock have loyalty to him even beyond the love of their own family."
is what I was driving at. I agree with the way you have put this. It is troubling that this seems to be the case, and provides yet another reason to dislike, to abhor the idea that the starting point was correct in the first place.
I think I'm in danger here of looking like I suddenly believe in God again. That's not what I was driving at at all. Rather, it seemed to me like his argument was reasonable if you assume the existence of this God with the Bible being His scriptures, so in fact, the way you are putting things,
"...that Jehovah is morally bankrupt, jealously demanding that his flock have loyalty to him even beyond the love of their own family."
is what I was driving at. I agree with the way you have put this. It is troubling that this seems to be the case, and provides yet another reason to dislike, to abhor the idea that the starting point was correct in the first place.
@Jim "Rather, it seemed to me like his argument was reasonable if you assume the existence of this God with the Bible being His scriptures, so in fact, the way you are putting things,"
Thats my point. We do not need to accept as a starting point that god is real etc, we just have to accept that him and his flock might accept that. I disagree with your use of the word "reasonable". Such a philosophy might have a kind of internal consistency, an internal logic for JWs, but such demands and such actions that are expected from the faithful should never be described as "reasonable".
As Naomi writes, "Love one another" is a worthwhile philosophy, not exclusive to but often identified with Christianity. But this god that the JWs worship is jealous, manipulative, shallow, needy, xenophobic, mysogynistic and brim-full of hatred. There is nothing - nothing - acceptable or "reasonable" about the demands they make of their flock, like this practice of disfellowshipping or the message that the Preacher offers in trying to defend it.
JWs are fond of scripture. Read that Matthew 10:34. I come not for peace but with a sword - Ask yourself - is that really any sort of being worthy of our love and devotion? This version of a god disgusts me profoundly. I have nothing but contempt for those that preach this sort of thing.
Thats my point. We do not need to accept as a starting point that god is real etc, we just have to accept that him and his flock might accept that. I disagree with your use of the word "reasonable". Such a philosophy might have a kind of internal consistency, an internal logic for JWs, but such demands and such actions that are expected from the faithful should never be described as "reasonable".
As Naomi writes, "Love one another" is a worthwhile philosophy, not exclusive to but often identified with Christianity. But this god that the JWs worship is jealous, manipulative, shallow, needy, xenophobic, mysogynistic and brim-full of hatred. There is nothing - nothing - acceptable or "reasonable" about the demands they make of their flock, like this practice of disfellowshipping or the message that the Preacher offers in trying to defend it.
JWs are fond of scripture. Read that Matthew 10:34. I come not for peace but with a sword - Ask yourself - is that really any sort of being worthy of our love and devotion? This version of a god disgusts me profoundly. I have nothing but contempt for those that preach this sort of thing.
Jim, his argument does have some logic in it if you discount other bits of the bible. JWs, like other religions, are rather picky when it comes to interpreting the bible. Separating families means the faithful reject support from anyone who rebuffs the tenets of the organisation, thereby weakening the position of the ‘believer’ and empowering the organisation. All dangerous cults do it - and the JWs are no different.
Vulcan, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are not obligated to follow the ten commandments. They think the law of Christ supercedes them.
Vulcan, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are not obligated to follow the ten commandments. They think the law of Christ supercedes them.
