Jehovah's Witness cartoon suggests to Children that magic-themed toys make Jehovah 'sad'

[shmogie]

People who are not right according to the Jehovah's Witnesses are not accepted by them. Anyone who stands out as associating with the LGBT community is not worthy to serve God, according to them. They are considered bad associations.

Please tell me what you mean by " stands out by associating with". That is pretty broad.

 

[savagewind]

Well, as Christian, I follow the Bible and it's guidance. Paul said that outside the Church if one decided to avoid people like this, he would have to leave the world. He also said that they were to be loved and respected, like any person should be. He also said they could not be members of the Church, without changing their behavior. Now, if the JW's disrespect and abuse these folk they come across in daily life, they are dead wrong. If they don't allow those practicing these these things membership, they are right. In my church, they are welcome to attend the services, encouraged, but they cannot be members, or take communion, or partake in baptism.

I am sure this offends your moral sense. I understand that. Your morality is the evolving and changing type. Some with this approach have evolved further, declaring pedophilia as "normal". True Christian's haven't the luxury of deciding morality on a sliding scale. Our morality is set, and has been in place for 2,000 years. It doesn't change for a true Christian, not now, not ever.

I know this is a terribly bitter pill for some to swallow, since they KNOW they are ABSOLUTELY right. No matter, as Walter Cronkite used to end his broadcasts, "that's the way it is".

I understand and I don't disagree, but they go further than refusing admittance. They truly believe that anyone who is not with them will be killed by their god when the time comes for it. Anyone who will not support their governing body members will be set on the road to destruction because they are professed least ones of Jesus' brothers (see the goats and the sheep illustration - they believe it is a sure prophesy of a coming real event).

 

[savagewind]

Please tell me what you mean by " stands out by associating with". That is pretty broad.

It means anyone who publically sides with LGBT lifestyle is seen by JWs as evil. They believe that people who do not agree with their precepts are bad associations who can knock them off their course.

 

[shmogie]

Yes, as it happens. It is called hate crimes. They are on the increase again since around the time Donald started campaigning. In some countries, yes to all the above. I can only assume you have little empathy for LGBT people.

LGBT people are still discriminated against in all kinds of ways systematically and put at a disadvantage, in ways similar to other minorities.

On top of that, there are people that hate them merely for existing and daring to do so at any social level. That's dehumanization.

Well, as one trained in the law, I find the concept of "a hate crime" a nebulous, variable, and subjective idea. Unless it is conspiracy, a crime is about actions, not motives. Are JW's committing "hate crimes" ? I personally haven't heard of any. You know, people "assume" all kinds of things. You don't know me, so don't make assumptions about me. Tell me how these folk are "discriminated against in all kinds of ways" and how that applies to JW's. I find it interesting that you state " there are people who hate them merely for existing" No doubt true. However, the same could be said of Christians, Jews, atheists, white people, black people, mentally challenged people, left handed people, straight people. Humans hate other humans for all kinds of reasons. Homosexuals and alleged trans sexuals. Hate of any person for any reason is repugnant, period.

 

[shmogie]

I understand and I don't disagree, but they go further than refusing admittance. They truly believe that anyone who is not with them will be killed by their god when the time comes for it. Anyone who will not support their governing body members will be set on the road to destruction because they are professed least ones of Jesus' brothers (see the goats and the sheep illustration - they believe it is a sure prophesy of a coming real event).

Yes, I agree that their theology in many ways is deeply flawed, and non Biblical. I have had much contact with them over the years. They are essentially good people, just in error. I study with them, they keep coming, and I keep listening to them. I have't converted one into being a Protestant Evangelical Christian, but, if they keep coming, maybe some day.

 

[oldbadger]

Kids play killing games all the time. Cowboys and Indians, Cops and robbers, I dunno pirates or whatever.
Magic killer (I don't think that's what the kid actually calls him, he says look at Sparlocks magic cape or something similar, voice acting needs work obviously) is fairly innocuous regardless. As many children often play with figurines who kill or beat up baddies in their imaginary playtime. Batman, Superman or even GI Joe if you're an 80s kid. I don't hear of anyone getting upset at that.
And wizards killing things are found in children's media all the time. Harry Potter being a prime example. Even the video game tie ins were rarely rated higher than an E or G depending on where you live.
Even still I doubt it's little more than a silly name bestowed by an 8 year old upon a fairly harmless toy wizard. Either that or the kid is a very young hardcore MMORPG gamer.

Hi....
I don't think infants get encouraged to engage in killing games, at least, not around here. The toys have changed over the years as well.
I haven't got a prob with JWs steering their kids away from such toys myself, I was more surprised by the critics being ok with the killing, warrior, fighting stuff.
Our community here is much more focused upon gender, race, nationality, (etc) neutrality, and so even cowboys/indians stuff wouldn't be seen as a great idea now.
Any films with fighting or worse get a 12-PG-15 censor rating, and although it's a very inexact science the psychologists seem to be steering us all away from aggression games for infants, even juniors.

In the end each couple just have to make their own decisions for their kids, but I wouldn't criticise JWs over this film, even though I reckon that Yeshua was believed by the people of his time to be a magi, which is another interpretation of the Greek word Tekton, as used in the gospels. It's all down to individual beliefs.

 

[oldbadger]

Jehovah's Witnesses teach (if and when you will read between their lines) that Jehovah is the magic killer. How so? When the time comes Jehovah will cause the death of everyone who isn't suited for life in the future. To know who-is-who is magic meaning that it is not natural to know who will repent and who won't. We don't know. But, in that day, they believe that Jehovah will finally use the power of God to eliminate every weed. They believe that God will be a worse killer than anyone real (or a toy) who has ever existed.

Yes, the Bible points to a day that evil will not exist but it is not so clear why it won't. Maybe, it just means that evil will finally reap what it has sown. Evil's works will cause the death of evil. Jesus Christ is the Prince of PEACE. To threaten the death of anyone is as far away from peace as you can get.

Hi Savage!
Well I'll be OK, 'cos being a Deist I don't actually believe what the JWs believe.
But their decisions about what their kids play with, and how they play is entirely up to them, imo.
Around here JWs have a very good reputation for how their kids grow up.

 

[shmogie]

It means anyone who publically sides with LGBT lifestyle is seen by JWs as evil. They believe that people who do not agree with their precepts are bad associations who can knock them off their course.

If they judge someone as "evil" because of this, they are wrong. They can judge a lifestyle as being out of harmony with God, according to Christian standards found in the Bible, but they cannot judge a person's soul, only God can do that and only God can determine who is spiritually evil. They have been associating with me, a non JW for a long time!

 

[oldbadger]

Then the lesson is WRONG! He had just come from school! At 4 or 5 by himself?

Yes.
Last week a troupe of 4 year-olds visited the vets where my Missus works. They go to Creches and Kindergartens very young round here, because so many couples both have jobs.

If you were worrying about him walking into the home on his own, maybe he got dropped off by another parent?

Honestly, if we need to nit-pick JWs for their beliefs and how they teach their own children then they aren't doing too badly.

Looking back on my parenting days, I think I'll just let 'em get on with it as they choose.

 

[shmogie]

Put into the public domain on YouTube. If you show these wretched things to your kids in your own home, there's little we can actually do to stop you. But you lose all ability to retort with "if you don't want your kids to watch it" when it's put up on the public domain. Now, if I don't want my children watching this fearmongering filth, I must needs essentially ban them from YouTube.


So says you, but you have very little evidence for this. In fact, to point, there's very little evidence of magic at all, so we're all practically barking about shadows and light. However for sake of argument...

There are magics that heal, that give comfort, that do blessing. Spells and wards to protect from harm and protect from evil; grant peaceful rest and clarity of sight. The only difference between "magic" and "miracle" is word use, and you cannot prove otherwise. Saying that the difference is that one is "of the devil" and the other is of god is short-sighted ignorance. It's a non-argument with no evidence, entirely relying on a two-party dichotomy that you have set up, just because there are actions and things done not from your god.

What do I think a wizard is? Nothing any different than your prophets. What else would you (not you because I already know) call a man who reads hidden script from an arcane tablet through a magic rock?

"magic" once thought of as a power, today is the skill of illusion, the only power involved s the cunning shown in designing tricks, and the skill of pulling them off.I love magic shows, seeing what appears to be impossible and knowing it is possible by the laws of the universe, because I saw it ! There are things that occur that are hard, or impossible to explain by the laws of the universe, as we know them. Being a Christian, I believe in a sort of multi dimensional universe, where beings of a dimension not ours, can step into ours. Hence miracles, hence other things

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Don't listen to me............................
Go search out the specialists:

JWs 5 .................... Criotics Nil
Away win for the JWs.

Toys That Affect Children's Behavior - Living The Bump
living.thebump.com › Parenting
The toys you choose to fill your shelves and toy box with can have a major impact on your little one's behavior. Choose wisely in the toy store or you may be dealing with a tyrannical tot who doesn't understand how to play nicely with others. By avoiding specific toys, you should be able to steer clear of aggression and violent ...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/...baby.../violent-media-and-aggressive-behavior-i...
8 Jan 2018 - With recent gun violence in the U.S., one of the questions that always comes up is whether violent media promotes violent or aggressive behavior, ... Vanessa LoBue, Ph.D. The Baby Scientist ... After watching the video, the children were brought into a playroom with the same doll and lots of other toys.
Vanessa LoBue, Ph.D.
Violent Media and Aggressive Behavior in Children
Does watching violence on TV, in movies, or video games promote aggression?
Posted Jan 08, 2018
Although the issue is often presented as controversial in the media, we have pretty good evidence that exposure to violent media does make children more aggressive. And we’ve known it for decades. In one of the most well-known studies on this topic (published all the way back in the 1960s), researchers showed preschoolers a video of an adult playing with an inflatable doll. In the video, the children watched as the adult sat on the doll, punched it in the nose, hit the doll on the head with a mallet, and kicked it repeatedly. After watching the video, the children were brought into a playroom with the same doll and lots of other toys. As predicted, the kids who watched the aggressive video imitated what they saw—they beat the doll with a mallet, and they punched and kicked it. What was most surprising was that the children found new and creative ways to beat up the doll, and they played more aggressively with the other toys in the room as well. In other words, children didn’t just imitate the aggressive behaviors they saw; seeing aggressive behaviors caused these kids to play more aggressively in general (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963).

Very recent research suggests that these effects can become particularly problematic when guns are involved. Researchers from Ohio State University brought pairs of 8- to 12-year-old children into a lab and showed them a 20-minute version of a popular PG-rated movie—either the Rocketeer (1991) or National Treasure (2004). In the edited movie, the children either saw that actual movie footage, which contained characters using guns, or they watched a version where the guns were edited out. They were then presented with a large room that contained various toys including Legos, nerf guns, and games. Not surprisingly, the children who watched the movie with the guns played more aggressively than children who watched the movie with the guns edited out, consistent with previous research.

Hey I can do this too:
Children and Pretend Guns: Does Play Equal Violence?

Pretend Violence Does Not Lead to Real Violence
Dr. Huffman explained to Decoded Parenting that pretend violence is not typically a precursor to the real thing. As long as children follow the negotiated rules, everyone’s laughing, all children are having fun, and there is no actual aggression involved, such play is harmless

Telling me that jumping to conclusions about boys playing is disingenuous about how they will actually interpret violence and behavior.

Boys and Toys Guns: Does It Lead to Real-Life Violence?

There's no scientific evidence suggesting that playing war games in childhood leads to real-life aggression

Telling me that your studies pverinflayed the significance of aggressive play as more relevant to child development than it was.

Play | Young Children’s Play Fighting and Use of War Toys | Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development

Educators are pressured to disregard the benefits of aggressive socio-dramatic play resulting in prohibition of various forms of the play, particularly play fighting4,9 and engagement with war toys. However, the elimination of play fighting and war toys by parents and educators may have a significant impact on young children’s development. Research suggests that the optimal education and development of young children, particularly boys, is not being met when playful aggressive tendencies are forbidden.4,6,7,10 Further, educational programs that restrict play types may foster play deficits, which inadvertently will leave children unprepared for future experiences.11 While educators are often uncomfortable with play fighting and with war toys, it can be argued that the omission of these forms of play in early childhood programs limits opportunities for development of social, emotional, physical, cognitive and communicative abilities in young children.

Which tells me that stopping play fighting and banning war toys can actually hurt kids and give them unrealistic expectations about the world around them.

Which tells me precisely what I've said, play fighting isn't actual aggression, kids know the difference, and oversensitive helicopter parenting makes things worse.

He also said at 0.30 in the film 'Sparlock, Magic Killer'!

Where are you getting this?
He says 'We need someone to save us. Sparlock can do it! Sparlock activate your magic!'

He is shorter than the table!

And both of their heads are half again too large, and their proportions are too stretched out on the mom and too squashed on the child. Welcome to cartoons stylization. That doesn't change the voice actor for the kid is like 7-10 years old.

He's 4, I reckon.

He wouldn't be in school yet. And why didn't they use a four-year-old voice actor?

7-10, huh? Still under 12A, I notice.

Once again, Harry potter isnt rated 12-A it's rated PG which means recommended for 8 and above but which legally any audience age can watch even without a parent. Only the last movie got higher than a PG rating (pg-13 in the US, 12a across the pond) because of some romantic content and partial nudity. Killing the evil wizard by the good wizard had already been done several times including the first movie. And, of course, all of the books which is how most families consumed the Harry Potter story long before the movies came out, and which there was no rating.

Once again, the only people who cared were some very over-sensitive stick in the mud fundamentalists.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Well, as Christian, I follow the Bible and it's guidance. Paul said that outside the Church if one decided to avoid people like this, he would have to leave the world. He also said that they were to be loved and respected, like any person should be. He also said they could not be members of the Church, without changing their behavior. Now, if the JW's disrespect and abuse these folk they come across in daily life, they are dead wrong. If they don't allow those practicing these these things membership, they are right. In my church, they are welcome to attend the services, encouraged, but they cannot be members, or take communion, or partake in baptism.

I am sure this offends your moral sense. I understand that. Your morality is the evolving and changing type. Some with this approach have evolved further, declaring pedophilia as "normal". True Christian's haven't the luxury of deciding morality on a sliding scale. Our morality is set, and has been in place for 2,000 years. It doesn't change for a true Christian, not now, not ever.

I know this is a terribly bitter pill for some to swallow, since they KNOW they are ABSOLUTELY right. No matter, as Walter Cronkite used to end his broadcasts, "that's the way it is".

If you could spend a single day in every decade since The Jews left Egypt, you would see that morality does indeed change. It never has been fixed.

Morality is one of the principal determinants of culture. Cultures change continuously,
The principal driver, is the enlightening effect of changes to moral understandings.
However like almost all change it is only noticed in arrears.
We are more aware of the moral values of our parents than those we actually live by.

 

[Trailblazer]

What?

Moshe was nothing like the last prophet. The last prophet is said to be Malachi iirc.

I was thinking in terms of the independent Prophets Who are followed and are the lawgivers and the founders of a new cycle of religion vs. the second kind of Prophets who are followers and promoters, those such as Solomon, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In the Baha'i Faith, we differentiate between these two kinds of Prophets: 43: THE TWO CLASSES OF PROPHETS

Moses was the last Prophet that Jews believe in that was an independent Prophet; Malachi was the last Prophet that was of the second kind.

So in the sense that Jews do not believe in the independent Prophets that came after Moses (Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah) they believe that Moses was the last independent Prophet.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

People in Moses day believed in magic some still do today...
There never has been the slightest evidence that it exists.
We know that in primitive times so little was known about anything, that almost nothing could be explained. Magic was as real to them as day and night... which they also could not explain.

Some things in the bible are no more than "beliefs" or social truths. Moses had no trouble with slavery, except for when it involved his own people. and the bible has passages supporting it... Today we have moved on, and know that it is a crime against humanity.

Bible knowledge needs to be applied with due regard for common sense.

Paranormal events happen every day, from Ouija board experiences to people thinking they're talking with "the dead"!

If you don't think those things occur, then go to the paranormal board and read those experiences.

The Bible warned the Israelites -- and, by extension, Jehovah's worshippers today -- to avoid interacting with divination, the occult, trying to talk with "the dead", and similar things. The Bible can protect us, if we heed it.

Regarding slavery in ancient times, the laws Yahweh provided governing the issue, were humane. The Gibeonites were a prime example. And because they became proselytes, they were allowed to integrate themselves into Israelite society.

As a side point...The examples of Rahab (the prostitute) and Ruth provide evidence that foreigners, as converts, could marry high up in Israelite society, even tho one used to be a harlot. That tells us God doesn't hold against us, what we were in the past, if we're willing to change. (Not exactly germane to the subject, but I thought it was interesting.)

Besides, Christians are told, "in humility, value others above yourselves." -- Philippians 2:3. That sort of precludes having slaves!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Paranormal events happen every day, from Ouija board experiences to people thinking they're talking with "the dead"!

If you don't think those things occur, then go to the paranormal board and read those experiences.

The Bible warned the Israelites -- and, by extension, Jehovah's worshippers today -- to avoid interacting with divination, the occult, trying to talk with "the dead", and similar things. The Bible can protect us, if we heed it.

Regarding slavery in ancient times, the laws Yahweh provided governing the issue, were humane. The Gibeonites were a prime example. And because they became proselytes, they were allowed to integrate themselves into Israelite society.

As a side point...The examples of Rahab (the prostitute) and Ruth provide evidence that foreigners, as converts, could marry high up in Israelite society, even tho one used to be a harlot. That tells us God doesn't hold against us, what we were in the past, if we're willing to change. (Not exactly germane to the subject, but I thought it was interesting.)

Besides, Christians are told, "in humility, value others above yourselves." -- Philippians 2:3. That sort of precludes having slaves!

People scaring them selves self witless, with ouiga boads and the like, prove nothing but their own stupidity and gullibility. Magic and the paranormal are nonsense. That is not to say we know everthing and that other abilities might develop. But I would not bet on it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Our society doesn't do nearly enough to protect the rights of children, but that's probably because it has no clear standard of child rights it's working with in the first place.

Yes, the very people who will scream bloody murder if a single celled human is evacuated from a mother's uterus will then turn around and dictate how their kid dresses, what kind of medical treatment they get, what food they eat, etc.

I don't think we should be giving voting cards to 4 year olds anytime soon, but I do think kids should get at least 50% of the decision making power given that it's THEIR bodies.

Incidentally, my favorite warrior wizard, who I read about at that age, was Gandalf.

Pffbt. Dumbledore was better.

Dumbledore: I manipulated events and people to the extent that a single messianic boy fixed the problem I couldn't solve because my evil apprentice reminded me of my boyfriend.

Gandalf: I didn't just snatch the ring away from the short guy and dump it in the volcano.

Dumbledore: Yeah, you could've just given it to the eagles. They couldn't exactly put it on or anything. Fawkes would've done me a solid like that. Your bird friends suck.

Gandalf: What if I put on a ring and it started to eat away at my hand? Oh, no, wait, that was just you.

Dumbledore: ...

Gandalf: I sacrificed my life and came back. You just made a smear on the castle grounds.

Dumbledore: I didn't NEED to come back. I carefully groomed my army so they could go on without me.

Gandalf: ...

What high percentage of parents? One of the most internationally best selling books of all time, with worldwide acclaim and merchendized toys through the roof, is about a good wizard who fought and killed an evil wizard.

I have Bellatrix's wand and a Slytherin hoodie. It's toasty warm in the winter.

I never did watch the Harry Potter films.

Is this like saying Spock was great in Star Wars? Blasphemy!

Sure so long as they also learn with equal time about Amenominakanushi's birth of the world. Or Ymir and the world tree. Or Purusha and the mundane egg. Or all the other creation stories of world religions giving no particular special attention to one. But that's another subject for another thread.

Yeah. A lot of those stories are even better than Genesis'.

The toys you choose to fill your shelves and toy box with can have a major impact on your little one's behavior. Choose wisely in the toy store or you may be dealing with a tyrannical tot who doesn't understand how to play nicely with others. By avoiding specific toys, you should be able to steer clear of aggression and violent ...

I love the Metal Gear Solid series. I don't go around with an AR-15 shooting entire groups of people.

In one of the most well-known studies on this topic (published all the way back in the 1960s), researchers showed preschoolers a video of an adult playing with an inflatable doll.

I have always been bugged by that study, because the kids lack context. The video appears to be demonstrating "correct" behavior. Dolls are also not alive. We kill fictional characters all the time. If it had been an adult hitting what looks to be a real live baby, you might get different results.

What was most surprising was that the children found new and creative ways to beat up the doll, and they played more aggressively with the other toys in the room as well. In other words, children didn’t just imitate the aggressive behaviors they saw; seeing aggressive behaviors caused these kids to play more aggressively in general (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963).

The kids also lacked context and guidance as provided by parents. The experiment essentially taught them to do it. It was a bad experiment. But this was the generation which allowed things like abuse of children or prison experiments or shocking the hell out of volunteers. And we wonder how we get the tiki torch people today.

The "moral" I take away from this video is that your kids shouldn't be trusted to be able to discern fantasy from reality, and that you should definitely be afraid that you are incapable of instilling in them the tools they need to do so.

I think that's because the PARENTS can't.

Well, as Christian, I follow the Bible and it's guidance.

You kill gays? That's what the bible MANDATES you to do.

He also said that they were to be loved and respected, like any person should be.

He just doesn't want to have anything to do with them.

He also said they could not be members of the Church, without changing their behavior.

I bet the apostles never changed THEIRS.

Some with this approach have evolved further, declaring pedophilia as "normal".

There are objective reasons for protecting a class of beings who cannot legally consent. Gays are in consensual relationships.

True Christian's haven't the luxury of deciding morality on a sliding scale.

You live completely like an ancient Roman-era Jew?

The Bible warned the Israelites -- and, by extension, Jehovah's worshippers today -- to avoid interacting with divination, the occult, trying to talk with "the dead", and similar things. The Bible can protect us, if we heed it.

Do you believe a board game can summon spirits? Is there at any point in your life when you go, "Wow. That's just stupid."?

As a side point...The examples of Rahab (the prostitute) and Ruth provide evidence that foreigners, as converts, could marry high up in Israelite society, even tho one used to be a harlot. That tells us God doesn't hold against us, what we were in the past, if we're willing to change. (Not exactly germane to the subject, but I thought it was interesting.)

Ezra didn't think so.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Looking back on my parenting days, I think I'll just let 'em get on with it as they choose.

I don't know that anyone is saying they're going to intervene and "teach those JWs a lesson" - certainly isn't anywhere on my calendar. However, if they want to avoid any and all critique of their methods then perhaps they shouldn't make publicly accessible instructional materials?

Just as they are allowed their methods of childrearing, I think I might be allowed my opinions on it. I might even be allowed to tell them what I think (imagine that!), just as they are allowed to ignore me. I admit that unsolicited opinions aren't my favorite thing in the world. But the day I let opinions like those hurt my feelings is the day I hope someone has the decency to put me out of my misery.

 

[shmogie]

Yes, the very people who will scream bloody murder if a single celled human is evacuated from a mother's uterus will then turn around and dictate how their kid dresses, what kind of medical treatment they get, what food they eat, etc.

I don't think we should be giving voting cards to 4 year olds anytime soon, but I do think kids should get at least 50% of the decision making power given that it's THEIR bodies.


Pffbt. Dumbledore was better.

Dumbledore: I manipulated events and people to the extent that a single messianic boy fixed the problem I couldn't solve because my evil apprentice reminded me of my boyfriend.

Gandalf: I didn't just snatch the ring away from the short guy and dump it in the volcano.

Dumbledore: Yeah, you could've just given it to the eagles. They couldn't exactly put it on or anything. Fawkes would've done me a solid like that. Your bird friends suck.

Gandalf: What if I put on a ring and it started to eat away at my hand? Oh, no, wait, that was just you.

Dumbledore: ...

Gandalf: I sacrificed my life and came back. You just made a smear on the castle grounds.

Dumbledore: I didn't NEED to come back. I carefully groomed my army so they could go on without me.

Gandalf: ...


I have Bellatrix's wand and a Slytherin hoodie. It's toasty warm in the winter.


Is this like saying Spock was great in Star Wars? Blasphemy!


Yeah. A lot of those stories are even better than Genesis'.


I love the Metal Gear Solid series. I don't go around with an AR-15 shooting entire groups of people.


I have always been bugged by that study, because the kids lack context. The video appears to be demonstrating "correct" behavior. Dolls are also not alive. We kill fictional characters all the time. If it had been an adult hitting what looks to be a real live baby, you might get different results.


The kids also lacked context and guidance as provided by parents. The experiment essentially taught them to do it. It was a bad experiment. But this was the generation which allowed things like abuse of children or prison experiments or shocking the hell out of volunteers. And we wonder how we get the tiki torch people today.


I think that's because the PARENTS can't.


You kill gays? That's what the bible MANDATES you to do.


He just doesn't want to have anything to do with them.


I bet the apostles never changed THEIRS.


There are objective reasons for protecting a class of beings who cannot legally consent. Gays are in consensual relationships.


You live completely like an ancient Roman-era Jew?


Do you believe a board game can summon spirits? Is there at any point in your life when you go, "Wow. That's just stupid."?


Ezra didn't think so.

hmmmmm, you don understand the difference between the old covenant, and new, OK. Of course the Apostles changed their behavior, Paul murdered and incited murder of Christians, he stopped doing it. You are wrong once again about Paul, you say he didn´t want anything to do with them, he preached to them. I don´t like board games. No, I live like a 21st century American Christian.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Pffbt. Dumbledore was better.
Dumbledore: I manipulated events and people to the extent that a single messianic boy fixed the problem I couldn't solve because my evil apprentice reminded me of my boyfriend.
Gandalf: I didn't just snatch the ring away from the short guy and dump it in the volcano.
Dumbledore: Yeah, you could've just given it to the eagles. They couldn't exactly put it on or anything. Fawkes would've done me a solid like that. Your bird friends suck.
Gandalf: What if I put on a ring and it started to eat away at my hand? Oh, no, wait, that was just you.
Dumbledore: ...
Gandalf: I sacrificed my life and came back. You just made a smear on the castle grounds.
Dumbledore: I didn't NEED to come back. I carefully groomed my army so they could go on without me.
Gandalf: ...

I'm going to shamelessly sidetrack the conversation here for a second...

No. Heck no. Naw to the Gorgoroth no! The Eagles would not have worked. Not only were they fighting wars in the North against the giants and trolls attacking their eyries, but had they come swooping into Mordor with the Ring, Sauron would have seen it right away and dispatched the Nazgûl, drakes, and everything else he could throw at them to reclaim the One Ring. They would have gone down fast and hard, and all would have been lost. It was always to be that a Hobbit - small, elusive, and stout of heart - would defeat Sauron by destroying the Ring; it had no strong hold over them because they don't desire much from life. Hypothetically, the Eagles could have used the ring, as well.

Also the armies of Middle Earth were fighting a lesser god. Sauron, the Istari (Saruman, Gandalf, Radeghast, and the other wizards), and Balrogs are all the same manner of being; Maiar, which are less powerful that the Valar, but still quite powerful in their own regard. Having taken mortal form, Gandalf (and the other Istari) was subject to the form he had chosen. As he was (Gandalf the Grey), he had no hope against the Balrog of Khazad-dûm (Durin's Bane), and even when he gained power and returned as Gandalf the White, he was almost defeated by the Witch King of Angmar. Not even he alone would have been able to overpower Sauron.

Had the armies gone to full war against Sauron, they would have likely failed. Victory was only granted them because Frodo and Sam destroyed the Ring, destroying Sauron and breaking his hold on Mordor. Even Gandalf's return wasn't to lead armies - that was Aragorn's doom - or to help Frodo and Sam in their task (they had passed beyond his sight and aid when crossing into Mordor). His return was for the purpose of counsel, inspiration (being known far and wide, and by many names) and as agency of the Maiar to the deeds of Free Folk. That's why he was the one to coronate Aragorn as King Elessar.

Gandalf kicks Dumb-old-door's butt.

 

[Deeje]

Nothing speaks more ill of a person than willful ignorance. The responses here make me shake my head...though I sincerely thank the voices of reason.
If people want to raise their children according to their own standards, then that is entirely their business. We do not force our views on others and appreciate it when others do not force their views on us. They can raise their children their way...we will raise our children our way. When they become of age...they will make their own choices about their spiritual direction.

This is a video designed for the children of JW's as a teaching tool for parents. We live in a visual age where pictures speak to children (especially young children) more than just words. I do not know who put it on YouTube, but it is only available from our website. It is not intended for public distribution because it is not really intended for a public audience. It is for OUR kids.

And? "Real person" or not, Jesus was talking about Satan there. You only get "devil" because the Greek word for "accuser, slanderer" was used instead of the Hebrew word for the same; satan.

We believe that "satan" (resister) the devil (accuser, slanderer) is a real and powerful entity. He 'resisted' the commands of his Creator and 'slandered' God's good reputation. He is not known by his personal name...only by his ugly titles, which describe exactly what he is.

Jesus treated him as a real entity and it is clear from scripture that this rebel angel had free access to heaven and earth (as did his followers in heaven.) After the pre-flood era where these angelic creatures could actually materialize flesh and blood and father children, God's response was to eliminate those monstrous children from existence and force their errant fathers back to the spirit realm, where he dealt with them by placing them in a condition of restraint ("Tartarus", which is erroneously translated "hell" in many Bibles) They were never able to materialize again. The global flood was God's way of cleansing his earth of such gross wickedness and starting again. Jesus said God will cleanse it again, but this time, not by water. (Matthew 24:37-39)

Ah, Job. So often misunderstood and misrepresented.

As you have done here....

One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.” “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.” Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD. -Job 1:6-12

Alright, so here we see Satan roaming around in Heaven. But wait, I thought the "devil" was imprisoned in "Hell," and banished from Heaven" Why would he be allowed there?

Well, as it turns out, there is no scripture that connects satan and hell at all. There is no such place as a 'hell of eternal torment'.

As an angel, even after his defection, he was permitted free access to both heaven and earth to try his best to turn any and all free willed creatures against their Creator. Why would God do that? Because he has no time for rebels and wants to remove them from his future plans. Allowing satan to do his best is the ultimate way to test out those who have the qualities that God is looking for....selfless loyalty, trust and love for the one who created them, despite all attempts to persuade them to do otherwise. At the end of the day God ends up with "sheep" and "goats".....one he rewards with life.....and the other he eliminates from existence because of not displaying the qualities he is looking for in the future citizens of his kingdom. Only the "meek will inherit the earth"...not the proud, arrogant, opinionated or rebellious. (Matthew 5:5; Matthew 25:41)

Some might say, 'Oh, but he has body-guards!' Why do the Divine need protection? With a blink of his eye, the Hebrew god could wipe Satan from existence. No, Satan is there with the angels as one of them. They are the council, the sons of god. Satan is named because he is the head of that council, and is the most important. He is the Prosecutor.

I'm sorry but that is a rather pathetic explanation that completely contradicts the personality of the Creator. It means that God has set everything up with malice, rather than responding to what his creatures do, due to the exercise of their own free will.

Free will is not 'free' if intelligent creatures have no choices. God did not plan the rebellion that took place in heaven as a response to what he did on earth. Sure he used the devil once he became the devil...but God did not make him a rebel or a "prosecutor"....the devil filled that role all by himself. (Ezekiel 28:143-15)
If he was God's 'servant', then why punish him with eternal annihilation in the "lake of fire"..."the second death"? (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 21:8) Christendom has this all messed up....as do you IMO.

Next, we see Yahweh ask the council where they have been, for no purpose other than narrative information to the reader. Here he asks Satan, as chief of the council, but his question is directed to the council as a whole body. Satan, in a likewise manner, answers for the group.

You forget that this is the same entity that offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world for one act of worship".
You honestly think a servant of God would test out God's own son, the savior of mankind in an attempt to make him veer off course....three times? (Luke 4:1-13) Satan has had access to all areas so that no intelligent creature would not be tested by this rebel. He took a great number of angels with him and he has deluded most of the human race. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) He is now confined to this earth as a result of Jesus taking up his kingship in heaven...that realm is now cleansed, awaiting the cleansing of the earth and for God's purpose to go ahead as he planned from the beginning. (Revelation 21:2-4; Revelation 12:7-12)

Free will is a costly exercise but one that God gave to all his intelligent creatures so that they would reflect his own qualities in their choices...willingly, not under threat of punishment.

We all know how much we value trust....but once it is broken, it is very hard to rebuild it. Angels and the first humans were not made with defects. They were perfect in every respect but had the ability to make choices...even wrong ones because free will had to be free. God didn't want robots or just another species of creature who operated purely by programmed instinct. Love, when it is motivated from the heart is a powerful thing....as Job demonstrated.

Then, Yahweh boasts to Satan (and the council,) his servant Job, and what a great man he is. The council will have already known this, and yet again this serves only as narrative information

.
Satan then offers the possibility that Job might not be so great.

In the wording, it is apparent that God had already detected some malicious intent on the part of satan regarding this righteous man. Since there was no one more righteous than Job in all the earth at that time, he became the target of a malicious test.....all of the malice was on satan's part. Since this man represented all future servants of God to come, his example is recorded in the Bible for our benefit.

In satan's second round of attack, God said of Job..."He is still holding firmly to his integrity, even though you try to incite me against him to destroy him for no reason.” 4 But Satan answered Jehovah: “Skin for skin. A man will give everything that he has for his life. 5 But, for a change, stretch out your hand and strike his bone and flesh, and he will surely curse you to your very face.”

He didn't say everything "Job" had he would exchange for his life....he said "a man will give everything that he has", so by extension satan was accusing all humans of being selfish in their faith, if their life was threatened. IOW, 'No one would die for God'. Satan was wrong and God knew that Job's faith was that strong or else he would never have permitted the test. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Taking this into consideration, Yahweh then gives Satan, as the Prosecutor, leave to test Job's faith. Notice that Satan could not act on this testing until given the express command of Yahweh? He lacks the authority to act. Ergo all "Satan's actions" are in fact Yahweh's, as they come from his direct command.

This demonstrates that God will not allow satan to go too far. In any test that he allows, God will make sure that his individual servants are up to the testing, and he will provide the needed strength to endure it. Think of the ways that satan attacked this man for no reason other than the fact that he was an exemplary worshipper of his God. Yet he did not waver in his faith, even though he had no knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes.

Your evaluation is a sick commentary on what you think of God. He knows what we think and why we think it.
If God is choosing the residents of the new world with the same standards that are set in the Bible, then little wonder that Jesus said that those being saved are "few". (Matthew 7:13-14; 2 Peter 3:13 or consider the whole chapter.)