JW,s have a separate forum. Any particular reason?

Zathrus · Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:45 am Post subject:

Some exellent points, Vibrate. The Witnesses are not bad people. I grew up with kids at school who were Witnesses, and have met and gotten to know others over the years. It isn't that they're bad people. And certainly name calling doesn't do anything but hurt feelings, and for those who draw their sense of identity from their Witness teachings, it only makes them dig their heels in because they will get all pleased with themselves, thinking "the world" is persecuting them for their faith in Christ.

Vibrate · Growing Guppy Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 41

The case of the JW organization is interesting. It has established itself by poking holes in the statements of other groups, and by setting up an approach that more obviously, nominally conforms to historical traditions.
At the same time it discourages its members from examining what outsiders have to say, and it deliberately separates itself from outside influence through its teachings. Luckily, since its teachings are based on a religious text, this is easy to arrange, since the religious text will obviously warn adherents to stay away from disbelievers.
From the skeptical point of view, it is easy to doubt their validity. Religious cults are easy to dream up, since the text will provide all that is needed. Just read a few books on what the recognized scholars have to say, pick holes in what the recognized groups are practicing, and establish yourself by teaching your followers to do certain things, and not do certain things, that the mainstream don't do, or do... It's a formula really.
So for the JW who seeks to gain converts, this skeptical position is a hurdle he must jump. To do so, he needs to demonstrate something deeper in his teaching than mere circumstantial evidence, or poking holes in the teachings and practices of others.
He needs to be able to appeal to the heart and soul, and to the spirit. He needs to identify his group in these sublime, eternal terms of reference, and not just focus on comparisons with other groups, or on interpretation of religious texts.
My only question then is this: Why is the JW loath to motivate their claims from a soul/spiritual/heart context? They are happy to quote from scriptures, and compare to others, but all of this is only circumstantial evidence at best. They do not want to talk about the heart and the spirit, so that they can demonstrate what they claim to be true.

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1550

Since, at Matt 7:13, only a "few" find the road to everlasting life, doesn't it seem logical that the "many" will find these ones unorthodox and use derogatory term in speaking about them?

Matt 7:13 “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.

Vibrate · Growing Guppy Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 41

You have obviously not even attempted to deal with the issue raised in my post, according to standard practice:
Do you know the difference between circumstantial evidence and proof?
Why are you unwilling to engage in a discussion about the center alone, instead of remaining in the periphery where the circumstantial evidence is?
Are you aware that this is the tactic used by liars? Surely you know that; we all do. A liar knows he cannot afford to define what he's talking about, because then he will be agreeing to an impartial standard outside of the control of the spin that he wants to put on things.
Getting you to define and discuss things from the spiritual, soul, love, heart perspective is like trying to get Bush and his cronies to define terrorism, and talk about their policies in those terms alone.
Why can't you do that?

Don't despair that I might be tying you down. As you know, there are many available tangents to respond to, while you continue the illusion of dialog. These tangents include, among others:
- Focus on the personal level, and express indignation at being compared to a liar. This works well with the doctrine that those who cannot hear will not understand, so you can quote the bible on me.
- Berate my practice of referring to principles such as circumstantial evidence and proof. Say that I am obviously "of the world". You can quote the scripture about not listening to philosophies of men for this purpose.
- That's a good quote to defend against my requirement that you define and discuss in common terms, as well. But you can also say that I am appealing to the natural man, which cannot understand the things of the spirit. That way you can reject anything that anyone says.

Or, you can calm your mind and actually read and understand, and approach the question that is being asked in my post. What an opportunity if you really are here to teach! I have actually set you up to strike that final blow for truth. What will you do???

Daystar · Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject:

Colter - JW's a cult?

Because Christianity is a cult that was born out of Judaism. The term "cult" used to be a harmless synonym for "new religious movement", but after widely publicized suicide groups like Jim Jones or David Koresh the term became a negative label. Now when someone doesn't like or agree with another religious group they label it cult when in fact none of us has a monopoly on "the truth".

David - Excellent! This is an unusually perceptive remark. The words cult and religion are pretty much the same. In the Bible the word "sect" was used to describe the new movement of Christianity; sect is pretty much a negative term just as cult is used today.

The JWs think that they have a monopoly on the truth, as do other Christian sects. Part of the search for truth involves the preconception that you don't know the truth and that in turn leads to an openess that invites the very truth which you seek.

If you begin with the assumption that you already know the truth, or that the truth must fit into some culteral or religious thought, it is already too late.

Colter - God and God alone is spirit sovereign in the affairs of men.

David - The way in which you phrased that is difficult to disagree with. I may agree with the way you phrased it but would advise against doing so in that it could be very misleading. God is a word which means anything or anyone that is attributed might or is venerated. In the Bible there are mentioned many gods. Some true and some false. Moses, Jesus, Jehovah, the Judges and angels (both righteous and unrighteous)were called gods. Satan, Molech, Dagon, Ashtoreth ... the word spirit in Hebrew is ruach and in Greek pneuma from which our Pneumonia and Pneumatic come from. In this way the word spirit means any invisible force that produces some effect. The wind, or breeze. Breath, or the mental inclination of a person or animal. The spirit of the horse was broken, the spirit of the crowd was angry.

It is not really true that the spirit of God, Jehovah is sovereign in the affairs of men, though in a sense it is true.

The spirit of Satan, the spirit of man himself is often placed above the spirit of God. And that is an unfortunate fact. Ultimately though, it is the spirit of Jehovah God the creator.

Colter - Because of the anti-science, anti-secular bent throughout the larger body of religions, world wide, all religions are increasingly viewed as part of the problem and not the solution. Because religious institutions are proud and self righteous by nature, they have failed to "confess their own sins", they have failed to update themselves as science is forced to update itself by it's own technique of disseminating facts when it finds them.

David - Hmmm. I find it interesting that I tend to agree with you, and at the same time disagree with you.

I would agree with what you said above if I were not so careful. I find it terribly interesting nevertheless.

The anti-science and anti-secular bent could very well be a problem, and is certainly viewed as a problem with religion, but I would add that the science and even the secular is in and of itself religious in nature.

If you go back to the ancient histories - the secular, they are heavily dependant upon the mythological. And science itself can be as dogmatic as the most ardent religious.

That is the problem and the solution as well. The notice of this is the solution.

Religion is selfrightious, and tends to depend upon belief rather than fact, but so does secular history and science. It is a human rather than a religion - or it is the human defect of belief rather than an observation of fact.

Science may be forced to update itself, but why would religion not? This begs the question of whether or not science chooses to do this as much as whether religion does not. The fact is that both fall short.

Colter - When contemporary man reviews the geologic records of an old earth and then listens to our stories of Noahs ark, a young earth Adam and Eve, the suspicious miraculous history of a racially chosen people, it is all of us that become part of a brain washing cult in their eyes.

David - True. But what value can we place all of this upon the search for truth? The fact that contemporary man more creates rather than reviews geologic records in the sands of time which are hanging in the ballance of the reality of man means little more than his own heart desires.

It isn't really about the racially chosen people, nor the brain washing cult. That would have been easy enough. That is pure politics. What the heart desires. Well, that is religion and politics and music and art and independant thought and religious lack thereof.

In their eyes? In our eyes they are us and in thier eyes they are us, which is what I assume you are saying. What then we have to overcome is what are they and what are we and in fact who cares and what does it matter?

To this my own study (observation) says that we are not God though we try to make ourselves God and in this we fail. That is the point.

Good post.

Colter - Cult, you say? Those who live in glass house's shouldn't throw stones.

David - Well that is certianly wise, though did you know that that was a spurious scripture? Actually never happened and was added on later.

Vibrate · Growing Guppy Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 41

Good stuff. Did that conversation actually take place? It was really enjoyable, and an excellent way to make a point. It is true that historical forms of religion have always been imperfect, and therefore false, as far as any claim of being "the true religion". But there is one true religion, which is the Way.
The Way is just the way things are, reality, the truth, nature, the order of life, or whatever term you like to use. The Way is the word of God.
The value of dialog, and the purpose of teaching is to spread the word - the Good news about the Way. Really we need to be talking about the spiritual reality, and religion, although it is meant to be a tool to facilitate this purpose, usually ends up complicating things, and dividing people. That is why someone who follows any religion should be able, and very willing, to state his case in non-religious language, from the spiritual root of truth, so that people can discuss and understand what he has to say, and judge the merit of his positions.
One definition of a cult is just any format for talking about spirituality. Another definition is a false system. A false system is one that talks about spirituality, but cannot motivate and explain its statements from a common, spirit/heart/soul/human perspective, but constantly quotes from a system of circular logic.
That is why I have been trying to find out from TBax whether he or any JW is willing to do so; but so far he acts like he can't hear me.