McBell
Admiral Obvious
Thus the reason i fail to see why the government need get involved.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cult Test
- Thread starter savagewind
- Start date
Thus the reason i fail to see why the government need get involved.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
A "Religion" is basically just a Cult that survived.
Really? Did you read only that sentence? If more than one suicide has happened because of the speration of children from fathers and daughters from mothers should government not act?
The list in the oringinal post on this thread comes from an email from a woman who is not able to see her grandchildren. Do you know what hate does to people? It is a hateful law which cause lots of hate for it and the reason for the law can't be proved. I have proved scripturally it means something else. But I am the only one who cares.
I think if something so seriously affective can't be proved it should not be allowed to teach it. Shouldn't there be a law against teaching hurful things? There is a law against peanut butter.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Are these children being kidnapped?
if not, then no, the government should not get involved unless there is something illegal going on.
People who hold onto their hate can often times become consumed by it.
There is a law against peanut butter?
Really?
Where?
For what reason?
Does this mean that you would agree that teaching creation should be made illegal?
I mean, it is hurtful.
God's feelings do not matter. I agree. But the feelings of family members who have their families riped from them matter. Why do their feelings not matter?
How bad is it from a loyalty point of view for a soldier who is captured to renounce his country and his country's cause?
That is what the governing body demand from disloyal ex Jehovah's Wintesses.
How bad is it from a loyalty point of view for a soldier who is captured to renounce his country and his country's cause?
That is what the governing body demand from disloyal ex Jehovah's Wintesses.
Thank you for making my point for me. Well done. Yes, they fight every waking minute of every day to not be consumed by an unjust rule.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I feel that you are mistaken on my stance.
It is not the "unjust rule" that is to blame.
it is the person who refuses to let go of their hate and lets it consume them that is to blame.
It is some kind of kidnapping.
Anything is illegal because a law has been made against it. There should be a law against prohibiting grandparents from seeing their grandchildren.
What if they are hating something God hates? What if they are hating something hateful? I think you are 1. not listening 2. playing stupid or 3. teasing me. They do not hate the one obeying the stupid law. They hate the law. They hate not seeing their families. Do you have a family? Are they happy you don't understand the family bond?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Because unless there is an illegal activity involved, how you (or anyone else) feel about the situation is irrelevant to the law.
"loyalty point of view"?
I do not understand what you are talking about.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Irrelevant.
Again, irrelevant.
I think you have allowed passion to over rule reason.
Again, you have missed my point.
It matters not the source/reason for the hate.
It is 110% the fault of the person harboring the hate for harboring the hate.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Something tells me that you are using the legal definition of kidnapping when you make that statement.
A person not allowing their parents to see said persons children is not kidnapping.
based on what?
The feeling of hurt the grandparent has?
I agree that the grandparents feelings of hurt suck, but to start making laws based solely on how someone feels is a terrible reason to pass laws.
A law can be made for it. That is what law makers do.
The women who shared the list in post one, many years ago, shared her doubts about 1914 the year the Jehovah's Witnesses preach Jesus came. She was disfellowshipped. It is forbidden to associate with people like that. As a matter of fact usually no one knows why the person is disfellowshipped. It is bbelieved they have renounced Jehovah. Sometimes all a person has to do is retract their confession and they will be reinstated and then they will be allowed to see their family again. So it becomes a war inside the head of the dissident. Should she live a lie so she can see her children or should she be true? That is a hard choice. I think if she had known she would have just left quietly and maybe she would still be allowed to see her grandchildren. We are taught God hates a liar. Should she lie? If she lies it is no guarentee she will be accepted back as before. It is a constant war in the head. That is not something to hate?
It would not be based on feelings. It is based on rules that are made that are not truthful. It is not true what they say 1 Cor 15:33 means. I know what it means.
I believe there exists statutes about family visitation rights. They are afraid of religion because of The Founding Fathers so they won't apply them to JW families. I think that's true. I don't know.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
so you are going to ask the government to rule on the truthfulness of a particular interpretation of the Bible over another particular interpretation of the Bible?
What happens if the court does exactly that and declares that the JW version is correct and that yours is wrong?
Nothing lost nothing gained.
I do not believe the law should be for each error believed. I think it should be for any attempt to use God to do harm. The thing about governerments is they care only for physical harm. Mental distress is hard to prove so they ignore it. It isn't right. Is it?
Actually there was a law passed once for what I propose. Daniel 3:29 Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save in this way
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I will answer your question AFTER you answer mine:
What happens if the court does exactly that and declares that the JW version is correct and that yours is wrong?
I said nothing lost nothing gained. That means I would have lost and things would remain the same. So?