The Jehovah's witnesses and the rest. What's the stumper?

[Dawnofhope]

What is the primary question that JW's are answering in this division? Whats the Stumper? Can JW's and other Christians in the forum provide some insight?

The issue of overwhelmingly concern for JWs is their belief that the Return of Christ is imminent and the urgent work they must do to preach this Gospel to others. There is just one pure and acceptable version of Christianity for the JWs and that is the version preached by the JWs themselves. Their rejection of the Trinity amongst other beliefs set them apart from corrupted and apostate Christendom. Their biblical doctrine constitutes the clearest proofs of the superiority of JW theology and how far the rest of Christendom has strayed from the truth.

 

[exchemist]

The Apostolic Authorities say that they are valid.


Uh, no. Remember the Schism of 1054? Remember the big fight over the Filioque Clause? No, they don't believe the same things -- and they date Easter differently from the Roman Church.


Not true.


Henry didn't "start" the Church. The Anglican bishops merely rejected Rome's authority over them, but they were still bishops in the Apostolic Succession -- just as Constantinople -- so they still had Apostolic authority. Your history is lacking. And 3 of these bishops consecrated Seabury in America, so the ECUSA is likewise valid.

I'm not sure this is quite right about the Church of England. It was Henry VIII who rejected papal authority, because the pope refused to annul his first marriage. But it is true that the church in England remained doctrinally Catholic until Henry's son Edward VI, whose Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, revamped the liturgy through his Book of Common Prayer and made it more Protestant. (Henry VIII's most decisive act in reducing the influence of the church was the dissolution of the monasteries.)

 

[oldbadger]

I was a Catholic and a JW and I left because they wanted me to conform with regards to stuff I didn't genuinely believe in. So my disagreement with their rules and regulations caused me to act and I left.

Have you ever read 1984 by George Orwell? That book shows the negative consequences of being pressured to conform which can be examined in real life studying various groups.

Good post, all of it.
I picked the last two paras because I'm only on a mobile.

So you were a JW? Good example then of a religion which supports freedom of choice. You could not conform to stuff and didn't believe in the whole package.... fair assessment? And you left.
Did they abduct you back? No.

Now in 1984 Big Brother not only took away the victims freedom but they brain washed him back in to the fold, made him tell of his sins, and then executed him.

Nope, can't see any comparison there.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Good post, all of it.
I picked the last two paras because I'm only on a mobile.

So you were a JW? Good example then of a religion which supports freedom of choice. You could not conform to stuff and didn't believe in the whole package.... fair assessment? And you left.
Did they abduct you back? No.

Now in 1984 Big Brother not only took away the victims freedom but they brain washed him back in to the fold, made him tell of his sins, and then executed him.

Nope, can't see any comparison there.

Are you deliberately making a strawman of my post?

You are failing to see my point. My post is about PRESSURE and not that there IS NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE. So, the consequences of me leaving was that all the JW's I knew do not contact me anymore. And I don't care whether they speak to me or not.

But, put yourself in the shoes of a person who was raised in the religion, got married and had kids and later on realised that he doesn't belief in it anymore. He wants to leave but at what cost? His family won't talk to him anymore. There is a chance that his wife and children leave him. If he shirks his "duties" in the faith people become suspicious of him. Imagine how he feels? If he leaves then he loses all those he loves.

Now can a person freely leave or is he pressured not to? If he wants to still speak to his parents because he loves them dearly he is forced to remain in the religion. True freedom of choice would be to leave without consequences when it comes to a faith based religion. And honestly a religion that employs those methods does not have a thick skin.

With regards to 1984 you didn't know what about it I was referring to so I don't know why you gave such an irrelevent reply. Since you have read it I am sure you know the methods they used to control the masses like different ministries right?

 

[oldbadger]

Are you deliberately making a strawman of my post?

Nope........... but the 'strawman' suggestion is not a bad one, defensively.

You are failing to see my point. My post is about PRESSURE and not that there IS NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE. So, the consequences of me leaving was that all the JW's I knew do not contact me anymore. And I don't care whether they speak to me or not.

So you don't care about them, much?
So where's the pressure?
I know that if a JW leaves that others will be cautious about that person, but if that person returns they will be embraced with joy.
Anyway, they know that I'm a total dead loss and yet they still receive me at the Kingdom Hall on those rare occasions when I visit.

But, put yourself in the shoes of a person who was raised in the religion, got married and had kids and later on realised that he doesn't belief in it anymore. He wants to leave but at what cost? His family won't talk to him anymore. There is a chance that his wife and children leave him. If he shirks his "duties" in the faith people become suspicious of him. Imagine how he feels? If he leaves then he loses all those he loves.

You've just described my circumstances to perfection, only my late wife died, all the rest fits exactly; so what do you want to ask me?

Now can a person freely leave or is he pressured not to? If he wants to still speak to his parents because he loves them dearly he is forced to remain in the religion. True freedom of choice would be to leave without consequences when it comes to a faith based religion. And honestly a religion that employs those methods does not have a thick skin.

Did your folks dump you?
I decided what Jesus decided........ good and trusted friends are Father, Mother, Brother and Sister all.
Do you want me to quote verses?

With regards to 1984 you didn't know what about it I was referring to so I don't know why you gave such an irrelevent reply. Since you have read it I am sure you know the methods they used to control the masses like different ministries right?

You quote a book but you only want attention focused upon the bits that suit you?
What did you say now..... :-

Have you ever read 1984 by George Orwell?

Yes! Yonks ago.

That book shows the negative consequences of being pressured to conform which can be examined in real life studying various groups.

Oh please! Where I live the City Parking Enforcement office calls itself 'Parking Services' or something similar. We live in a World that uses Double Think wherever possible...... honestly!

If I don't conform tomorrow and wear a face mask I will get a £100 fine, and I know what our City Council will do with its new powers just legislated, it will need to harvest some of the lost millions over recent months.

The World is full of pressures and rules and laws....... and even the local Bowls club has a list of rules and pressures.

I hope your family return to your side, Israel, I certainly do, but mine are long gone, I'm afraid.

 

[sojourner]

Question: What canon do the Anglicans use?

Same as the Roman Church, with some exceptions as to level of authority of some texts.

Jesus formed ONE Church!

Correct. The Church is one, holy, and catholic, but not exclusively Catholic.

ONE CHURCH can only be the Catholic Church!

Wrong. The Catholic Church is one of many facets of the one, holy, catholic Church.

You post the word catholic with a small "C"!

Correct. The word means “universal.” It’s a descriptor, not the name of a denomination.

You mention the Catholic Church with the word "Roman" in front!

Yes. The name “Roman Catholic Church” designates it as the Church of the See in Rome, as distinct from the Orthodox Church, whose See is Constantinople. The Western Church, as opposed to the Eastern Church.

Fact is the Catholic Church the ONLY Church that is the body of Christ has always be referred to as "The Catholic Church"; No Roman in front!

Not true. The Roman Catholic Church is not the only facet of the Church. The whole Church is catholic, but not Catholic. It has been designated as “The Church at Rome” since ancient times, to distinguish it from the Church at Ephesus, Corinth, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc., and later to distinguish it from the Eastern Church.

Fact is... It was the English Protestants (Anglicans) that put the word "Roman" in front of Catholic; implying if there is a "Roman" catholic church then there are other catholic churches!

Partly true. See above.

 

[Samael_Khan]

So you don't care about them, much?
So where's the pressure?
I know that if a JW leaves that others will be cautious about that person, but if that person returns they will be embraced with joy.
Anyway, they know that I'm a total dead loss and yet they still receive me at the Kingdom Hall on those rare occasions when I visit.

I didn't join the religion to make friend. I joined the religion to serve God. Once I stopped believing that they served God then I left easily. I wasn't in it for emotional reasons.

You've just described my circumstances to perfection, only my late wife died, all the rest fits exactly; so what do you want to ask me?

I didn't know that about you. Which religion did you belong to?

Did your folks dump you?
I decided what Jesus decided........ good and trusted friends are Father, Mother, Brother and Sister all.
Do you want me to quote verses?

My parents were never JW's so we are all good. I was a convert. Hence why I said that there is a difference between converts and those born in a group. Converts should know exactly what they are getting into and if they find out the religion is wrong and then struggle to leave it is a result of their own lack of research and critical thinking. I was young and stupid so I didn't research enough.

You quote a book but you only want attention focused upon the bits that suit you?
What did you say now..... :-

I didn't quote the book. I asked if you read it and then if you know about the certain ministries. The reason why i asked this is because the different ministries methods are used by many groups today to a lesser or greater degree. For instance, information control, is something that China, North Korea, Scientology and many other groups use to a great degree. Then a lot of religious groups use this to a lesser degree. Such as saying that one mustn't study other religions or not look at what critics say about the religion otherwise there will be consequences. That is all I was getting at. 1984 shows the consequences of these methods of control to the extreme.

Yes! Yonks ago.

I love the book. It made me realise quite a lot about how people control others in real life.

Oh please! Where I live the City Parking Enforcement office calls itself 'Parking Services' or something similar. We live in a World that uses Double Think wherever possible...... honestly!

If I don't conform tomorrow and wear a face mask I will get a £100 fine, and I know what our City Council will do with its new powers just legislated, it will need to harvest some of the lost millions over recent months.

The World is full of pressures and rules and laws....... and even the local Bowls club has a list of rules and pressures.

Yep! Double Think is used a lot! So when I mention other groups, even our governments use this level of control.

I hope your family return to your side, Israel, I certainly do, but mine are long gone, I'm afraid.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[sojourner]

For some reason people always forget the Eastern Orthodox

How convenient!

 

[sojourner]

Not allowed?
Sojourner, you're a Christian/Shaman. Do you attend any churches? Do you belong to a particular Church or follow a specific Creed?

I’m a duly ordained member of the clergy with full standing in a mainstream denomination.

OK.
But .... Tell me of any group that doesn't have rules, principles and standards

There are several whose only standard is that the member proclaim Jesus as savior. There are several who point out, but do not dictate, doctrine.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not sure this is quite right about the Church of England. It was Henry VIII who rejected papal authority, because the pope refused to annul his first marriage. But it is true that the church in England remained doctrinally Catholic until Henry's son Edward VI, whose Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, revamped the liturgy through his Book of Common Prayer and made it more Protestant. (Henry VIII's most decisive act in reducing the influence of the church was the dissolution of the monasteries.)

Well, yes, but my point still stands. The Church was already extant in Britain, and her bishops were established in the Apostolic Succession. Henry started nothing. I am Anglican, and wrote a thesis on Thomas Cranmer in seminary.

 

[Samael_Khan]

How convenient!

Especially with regards to the Trinity, since the Eastern Orthodox have their own version. And when I bring it up people get confused and say "There is only one Trinity!!!"

 

[Terry Sampson]

Their biblical doctrine constitutes the clearest proofs of the superiority of JW theology and how far the rest of Christendom has strayed from the truth.

LOL! That's actually quite funny coming from you, given your "great affection" for fundamentalist Christians who take things in Scripture literally. One would be hard-pressed to find a group of Christians more fundamentalist and "literalist" than the JWs, and I'd be amazed to hear of one joining an ecumenical council.

 

[Samael_Khan]

LOL! That's actually quite funny coming from you, given your "great affection" for fundamentalist Christians who take things in Scripture literally. One would be hard-pressed to find a group of Christians more fundamentalist and "literalist" than the JWs, and I'd be amazed to hear of one joining an ecumenical council.

This is a very interesting point. The many Baha'i on this forum see the Bible as mostly symbolic or allegorical. The JW's are the complete opposite. They believe Adam and Eve to have actually existed, the flood to have actually happened etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hold on. Mate, please make me understand. Overly control marriages? Who does?

IMHO, there are sects that overly control marriages:

RCC: Elders cannot marry (unbiblical)
LDS: Elders must go on mission for two years/separating from affianced/not marrying
JWS: Arranged marriages/pressure marriages/only marry JWs, etc.

Etc.

 

[firedragon]

IMHO, there are sects that overly control marriages:

RCC: Elders cannot marry (unbiblical)
LDS: Elders must go on mission for two years/separating from affianced/not marrying
JWS: Arranged marriages/pressure marriages/only marry JWs, etc.

Etc.

Oh okay. I understand what you said now.

I have seen Buddhist societies be crazily controlling in this matter. So are Muslim societies. So are Hindu societies. So are Christian societies. Even protestant societies. The issue that I see in this kind of topic is that our knowledge is very anecdotal. The world is such a vast place.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The JW's are the complete opposite.

They have their admirers among the heathen, to be sure; unless, of course, the heathen are ex-JWs. I hear they're also very popular in Israel.

 

[sojourner]

Hello sojourner I hope all is well... I reply! The Orthodox are Apostolic the Anglicans are NOT! 1054 they left the Catholic Church in a dispute still the truth of scriptures remain with them!

Yes, the Anglicans certainly are. They are still within the Succession of bishops.

 

[sojourner]

There is just one pure and acceptable version of Christianity for the JWs and that is the version preached by the JWs themselves.

That's divisive. Yet, they say that Satan foments divisiveness. Those two beliefs are incongruent and therefore, disingenuous.

Their rejection of the Trinity amongst other beliefs set them apart from corrupted and apostate Christendom.

See above. The Faith is diverse -- not uniform. Trying to force it into that mold goes against their commitment to "original" Xy (which was widely diverse).

Their biblical doctrine constitutes the clearest proofs of the superiority of JW theology and how far the rest of Christendom has strayed from the truth.

All other denominations use Biblical doctrine, too. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, but it ain't "everyone else."

 

[Dogknox20]

Yes, the Anglicans certainly are. They are still within the Succession of bishops.

The Anglican Bishops rejected God, Jesus said accept you then you accept Him he added those who reject you reject him and the Father! The Anglican Bishops are not in union with the One Church Jesus established! Also their communion is not the communion of the Catholic Church! It is phony! Playing priest is not the same as a real priest!

 

[exchemist]

Well, yes, but my point still stands. The Church was already extant in Britain, and her bishops were established in the Apostolic Succession. Henry started nothing. I am Anglican, and wrote a thesis on Thomas Cranmer in seminary.

Yes I wouldn't argue with you about the apostolic succession aspect.

But I'm now intrigued - and always willing to learn from an expert. Why do you say Henry started nothing? Is there evidence that the Church in England wanted to break with Rome of its own volition, before the issue of Henry's marriage annulment came up? I have never come across this idea.