Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons

[Robert Oz]

What do Jehovah's Witnesses do or say when Mormons come knocking on their door?

And what do Mormons do or say when Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on their door?

This may sound like a joke thread, but I'm genuinely interested.

[arthwollipot]

I know a guy we call Badger (long story) who's a Mormon and has some pretty awesome stories about his missionary work. I'll try and remember to ask him when I next see him. Probably on the weekend.

[bluess]

One of my friends is the only remaining Methodist in a family that has converted to Mormonism. When Jehovah's Witnesses knock on their door, her brother-in-law invites them in so they can argue for two hours.

[maddog]

EEEEEK!!!! Heathens!!! Run for your lives!!!



Sorry. Somebody had to say it. And it's usually me.

[The Greater Fool]

It is really the same as when a Mormon or Witness knocks on the door of any type of zealot (even a zealous atheist): It depends on the mood of the moment, as everyone knows there is no chance of getting anywhere, it's an opportunity to have some fun and/or hone your arguement, if you have time.

For the Morman or Witness at your door, it's far more interesting to find someone that actually has an informed opinion about what they believe than the vast majority of people who claim Christianity but haven't ever read the Bible, though the latter are easier prey if they listen or let you talk (which most don't).

[Psi Baba]

A friend of mine is a catholic with an M. Div. in Theology. He loves it when JW's come to the door. Spider/Fly...

[MG1962]

A friend of mine is a catholic with an M. Div. in Theology. He loves it when JW's come to the door. Spider/Fly...

LOL - I had an Aunty exactly the same. Knew the book backwards, and was very committed to her faith - three cups of coffee and 4 hours later the JWs called it quits and ran for the hills.

[bickerer]

My atheist Father (who also believed that we were conceived by aliens and was a big fan of Van Daniken, meh, we can't all be perfect) relished inviting the Mormon missionaries in to watch him watch wrestling on TV on Saturday mornings and argue over biblical fallacies. Once in a while I'd sit in the den (if the boys were cute) and watch as he ripped into whichever 2 young men had unknowingly stumbled into their doom. He was a firm believer in being prepared and could recite biblical passages from memory before tearing them down, it was great fun to see the eager scrubbed faces of the missionaries crumple as he ranted. It eventually came to light that a friend of his who was an Elder in the church was sending these young novices to see him, but they'd been showing up for years before my Father discovered that he was being used as an educational device!

[wendyinthewind]

My atheist Father (who also believed that we were conceived by aliens and was a big fan of Van Daniken, meh, we can't all be perfect) relished inviting the Mormon missionaries in to watch him watch wrestling on TV on Saturday mornings and argue over biblical fallacies. Once in a while I'd sit in the den (if the boys were cute) and watch as he ripped into whichever 2 young men had unknowingly stumbled into their doom. He was a firm believer in being prepared and could recite biblical passages from memory before tearing them down, it was great fun to see the eager scrubbed faces of the missionaries crumple as he ranted. It eventually came to light that a friend of his who was an Elder in the church was sending these young novices to see him, but they'd been showing up for years before my Father discovered that he was being used as an educational device!

lol! He should be flattered!

[RandFan]

And what do Mormons do or say when Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on their door? A better question is, what do they do when an atheist comes knocking?

John Safran: Door To Door Atheists Bother Mormons (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/54259/detail/)

ETA: I think the video will answer your question. It shows realy Mormons dealing with someone knocking on their doors propigating an idea.

[Tanstaafl]

I must confess, I only came into this thread to look for the punchline.

I'm so disappointed. :(

[AkuManiMani]

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons...

Should do NINJA BATTLE!!

*ahem*

It'd be cool >_>

[TimCallahan]

I worked with a few Mormons many years ago. One of them was telling how he was sent on his mission to the French Riviera. I asked him if the French Catholics gave him much grief. He said, no but that he was hassled by Jehoveh's Witnesses. So I got this picture of this earnest young man in his white shirt, black pants and skinny black tie trying to convert the topless sunbathers on the beach at the Riviera to Mormonism, all the while being followed and harassed by a mob of JW's.

[Marduk]

I have always been on the JW blacklist, one visit was enough, then a couple ofyears ago they opened a new JW temple in my area and were all enthusiastic about converting the heretics again. I am also now on their blacklist.

aparently questioning them on what propulsion system Jehovas rocket chair has causes them a small crisis
from the watchtower
1927 "The face of the deep, of course, would be toward the Pleiades, which are claimed to be the habitation of Jehovah." (Creation; 1927; 2,175,000 ed.; p. 94)

1928 "The constellation of the seven stars forming the Pleiades appears to be the crowning center around which the known systems of the planets revolve even as our sun's planets obey the sun and travel in their respective orbits. It has been suggested, and with much weight, that one of the stars of that group is the dwelling-place of Jehovah and the place of the highest heavens;..." (Reconciliation; 1928; p. 14)

1928 "The constellation of the Pleiades is a small one compared with others which scientific instruments disclose to the wondering eyes of man. But the greatness in size of other stars or planets is small when compared with the Pleiades in importance, because the Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of God." (Reconciliation; 1928; p. 14)

:)

last year a JW moved into my housing block and distributed books about their religion, I sent it back with corrections in red marker pen, really I am of the opinion that as I do not go door to door trying to convince people to be as sexually depraved as I am then people shouldn't come to my door to discuss their kinks either. YKIOKIJNMK

[garcia<3]

HAHA! this brings back memories. My parents are JW's and Mormons would always come to our house. They argued for hours, and it was hilarious :D

[arthwollipot]

I know a guy we call Badger (long story) who's a Mormon and has some pretty awesome stories about his missionary work. I'll try and remember to ask him when I next see him. Probably on the weekend.Thanks for bumping this, whoever it was. I asked Badger what happened, and unfortunately the answer was "not much". Oh well.

[The Nimble Pianist]

It all depends on devotion.

My parents would do what most normal people do when JWs come knocking: "Sorry We're not interested <<SLAM>>".

Though there was one night I remember when I was 15. I was eager to go out with my friends, however I had to spend an hour or two with my family at home since we were having the missionaries over for dinner (Mormon houses take turns feeding them). With just my luck, some JWs decide to come to the door just as the missionaries do. My father, being a Stake President at the time and so compelled to look good in front of the missionaries broke his routine and actually invited the JWs inside! 3 hours went by, dinner was still yet to be had, and my friends went off without me.

Oh and the missionaries had gotten in trouble with their mission president, but I can't remember why.

As you can tell, it spells disaster for everyone when representatives from both zealous sects are in the same place at the same time.

[Ethnikos]

JWs are really easy to stump.
Just ask them this:
All things that were created were created by the Word. How could the Word then be created?

[The Greater Fool]

JWs are really easy to stump.
Just ask them this:
All things that were created were created by the Word. How could the Word then be created?
Based on JW theology, your premise that the Word created everything, is wrong. JW translation of John 1:1 is slightly different, and elsewhere JC is refered to as the first/best of creation (that, also, could be a slightly different translation than usual). The Word is JC and was created by Jehovah God. JW's don't have a triune god. Jehovah, THE God, is the father of all creation, including JC. JC is God's son, thus has a beginning. God, of course, is infinite.

In point of fact, your "stumper" helped them out, because they want to explain to you the difference between God and Jesus, and each of their roles in the good news of the kingdom.

If you do ask a real stumper, they'll promise to get an answer back to you, then they'll bring a "big gun"... and no matter how that meeting goes, they'll be patting themselves on the back on how well they answered your questions.

My (ex)JW perspective of Mormons is that it is pretty much the same deal with them.

ETA: The most consistent "win" you will get is not engaging them to begin with, and not wishing you could have that time back ;)

[The Nimble Pianist]

Based on JW theology, your premise that the Word created everything, is wrong. JW translation of John 1:1 is slightly different, and elsewhere JC is refered to as the first/best of creation (that, also, could be a slightly different translation than usual). The Word is JC and was created by Jehovah God. JW's don't have a triune god. Jehovah, THE God, is the father of all creation, including JC. JC is God's son, thus has a beginning. God, of course, is infinite.

In point of fact, your "stumper" helped them out, because they want to explain to you the difference between God and Jesus, and each of their roles in the good news of the kingdom.

If you do ask a real stumper, they'll promise to get an answer back to you, then they'll bring a "big gun"... and no matter how that meeting goes, they'll be patting themselves on the back on how well they answered your questions.

My (ex)JW perspective of Mormons is that it is pretty much the same deal with them.

ETA: The most consistent "win" you will get is not engaging them to begin with, and not wishing you could have that time back ;)


Yes and no.

Yes, the LDS are non-trinitarian like the JWs and they believe that Jesus Christ is a creation of "Heavenly Father". Jesus Christ is responsible for having created the earth.

The differences lie in:

- Contrary to JW theology, Jesus is Jehovah. "Heavenly Father" is Elohim.
- the Archangel Michael (who is said to be the pre-mortal Adam) accompanied Jesus (Jehovah) to build the earth.
- Jesus didn't create the earth (as in create the raw materials) rather he "organized the preexisting matter" into what we see today.

[HeyLeroy]

I had a couple of ladies from the baptist church around the corner come by the other day while I was reading a book on the porch to invite me to come worship with them. The one young lady was quite attractive, so I didn't offer my opinion of baptists (they aren't held under long enough). I explained that I was an atheist. They told me they'd pray for me; I wished 'em good luck with that.

Then I said it wasn't quite fair that they should bring an angel 'round to try and convert me and gave the one I found attractive a wink. She turned about fifteen shades of red, they laughed nervously and left.

What can I say; the devil made me do it. :D

[The Greater Fool]

Yes and no.

Yes, the LDS are non-trinitarian like the JWs and they believe that Jesus Christ is a creation of "Heavenly Father". Jesus Christ is responsible for having created the earth.

The differences lie in:

- Contrary to JW theology, Jesus is Jehovah. "Heavenly Father" is Elohim.
- the Archangel Michael (who is said to be the pre-mortal Adam) accompanied Jesus (Jehovah) to build the earth.
- Jesus didn't create the earth (as in create the raw materials) rather he "organized the preexisting matter" into what we see today.

Thanks for the clarification on the theological differences, though I was talking about their reaction to answering "stumper questions" and wishing for the time you wasted asking them back. :)

[The Nimble Pianist]

Thanks for the clarification on the theological differences, though I was talking about their reaction to answering "stumper questions" and wishing for the time you wasted asking them back. :)

Ah! My bad! :D

Indeed though. I'm not sure how JWs handle rejection, but for the Mormons, if you're really liked, they bring bigger dogs to your house the next time around.

I've made my way up the ladder by having a Mission President, then a Bishop, and then a Stake President brought to me.

All I need is for a Seventy and an Apostle to come to my door and I've got bingo!

[Ethnikos]

My (ex)JW perspective of
Maybe you can help me out a little. I posed this on another forum where there were four different JWs posting on a regular bases. After posting my question they are mysteriously silent. Maybe they are waiting for one of the others to answer it first.
I understand the part about how on John 1 says the word was God, they interpret it to mean, the word was a god. I would imagine they interpret the rest of it normally. In the beginning was the word. . . all things that are created were created by the word. They believe Jesus created everything other than himself.
The other question I have never had answered by JWs is why it says Jehovah created Adam.

[Geezer]

I have always been on the JW blacklist, one visit was enough, then a couple ofyears ago they opened a new JW temple in my area and were all enthusiastic about converting the heretics again. I am also now on their blacklist.

aparently questioning them on what propulsion system Jehovas rocket chair has causes them a small crisis
from the watchtower


:)

last year a JW moved into my housing block and distributed books about their religion, I sent it back with corrections in red marker pen, really I am of the opinion that as I do not go door to door trying to convince people to be as sexually depraved as I am then people shouldn't come to my door to discuss their kinks either. YKIOKIJNMK

Ah yes, my father started the trend and got our whole family blacklisted in the 70's.I got new neighbors last year (or so) who are JW's, they say hi and all but they look kinda sad when they see me.
Come to think of it I haven't seen any Mormons either...do they blacklist too?

[The Nimble Pianist]

Ah yes, my father started the trend and got our whole family blacklisted in the 70's.I got new neighbors last year (or so) who are JW's, they say hi and all but they look kinda sad when they see me.
Come to think of it I haven't seen any Mormons either...do they blacklist too?

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Stressed when I was an LDS missionary. Not so sure if the LDS still practice this though. Wouldn't be surprising considering the LDS habit of ignoring the other admonitions to missionaries in that same book and chaptersuch as:

And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse.

[Marduk]

Come to think of it I haven't seen any Mormons either...do they blacklist too?

In my area Mormons are like gold dust, I met one once while employed to protect him, it was amusing (because he couldn't get away from me), he was a great guy and recolied with horror whenever I asked him about polygamy (mwhahahaha, hahaha, hahahamwahaha)

My record was 9 times in a 20 minute period, can anyone beat that,
:D

[The Nimble Pianist]

In my area Mormons are like gold dust, I met one once while employed to protect him, it was amusing (because he couldn't get away from me), he was a great guy and recolied with horror whenever I asked him about polygamy (mwhahahaha, hahaha, hahahamwahaha)

My record was 9 times in a 20 minute period, can anyone beat that,
:D

You were a Mormon Missionary Body Guard!? :confused:

Why didn't I get one of those?

Was he a famous Mormon?

[RandFan]

All things that were created were created by the Word. How could the Word then be created?I've got a much better one, one that has never been explained without appeals to mystery or contradiction.

Why is there evil in the world? Is God able to destroy evil? Is God willing to destroy evil?

If he is willing to destroy evil but not able to do so, than he is not omnipotent/all-powerful.

If he is able to destroy evil but not willing to do so, than he is malevolent. (Basically, he does not destory evil even though he can, therefore he allows it to exist which would make him evil.)

If he is both able and willing, than whence cometh evil? (If he wants to destroy evil and he is able to destroy evil, than there wouldn't be any. But there is.)

If he is neither able nor willing, than why call him god? (If this is true, than god is pathetic and on the same level with human beings. In this case, why would you worship him?)

Now, you can say that he created humans with free will and free will caused sin, but it is still in essence caused by god. If god made evetything, than he made evil. Also, you would think that if he was all-knowing then he would see what would happen if he gave free will to humans. If he didn't know, then he is not all-knowing.

So, where does this leave God? Two possibilities present a situation where he could not exist. One supposes that he is pathetically weak, and the final presents that he is evil. Thus leaving anyone who believes in a god stumped (or capable of an incredible degree of suspension of logic and reason).

[RandFan]

After posting my question they are mysteriously silent.I've no doubt that many could give you an answer. Anything can be answered. Answers are easy. You are a great example. You've answered many questions I've posed of you. Many if not most of those are are really trite and entirely unconvincing to anyone who does not already believe. You can't see that because you are a believer and your belief fills in the rough spots of illogic and unreason. You won't accept this but I can assure you that you are as unreasonable as any JW or Mormon.

[dropzone]

My wife is a Methodist-turned-Lutheran. When the JWs come to the door she serves them lemonade (it's hot, dry, ungratifying work), subscribes to the Spanish version of Awake! (¡Ayuda!, IIRC), and takes one for the team by keeping them from bothering our neighbors.

[Ethnikos]

I've got a much better one, one that has never been explained without appeals to mystery or contradiction.

Thus leaving anyone who believes in a god stumped (or capable of an incredible degree of suspension of logic and reason).Let me slightly reword it and get to the essentials:
Why am I in the world? Is God able to destroy me? Is God willing to destroy me?
If he is able to destroy me but not willing to do so, than he is malevolent. (Basically, he does not destroy me even though he can, therefore he allows me to exist which would make him evil.)

I being evil, will take this little puzzle personally and say that when I look at it like this, God seems compassionate. If god allowed me to live forever in this state of evil, that would not be compassionate, overall, for everyone. So God has to cut the time short to be just.
Now, you can say that he created humans with free will and free will caused sin, but it is still in essence caused by god. If god made everything, than he made evil. Also, you would think that if he was all-knowing then he would see what would happen if he gave free will to humans. If he didn't know, then he is not all-knowing. Free will is not something that is discussed in the Bible except for a freewill offering in the old testament. This is not something so much ordered by law for a specific purpose but is voluntary. So it implies that doing something on your own of your own volition is exercising your free will. If one was to voluntarily disobey God, then that would be a sin. So sinning would be assumed as something done by choice. Evil is a little more of an ambiguous word and can mean a lot of things. It could be argued that if sin had not entered, evil would not have either. Man did not invent evil but sinful man can create evil by situations that arise from sinful activities.
An unfallen person would most likely not want to trade their free will for having evil in their life. So time after time, you would find man choosing wisely and not sinning. As it turned out, the people who we are descended from made a bad mistake and we suffer evil in our lives as a consequence. On millions of other worlds, those people did not act foolishly and they are living lives free from evil.
So, where does this leave God? Two possibilities present a situation where he could not exist. One supposes that he is pathetically weak, and the final presents that he is evil. Jesus is the good Shepherd who leaves the hundred of his flock who are ok and goes to rescue the one who has lost its way.

[shawmutt]

Can I have more than one wife? No?

*Slam*

[realpaladin]

I've got a much better one, one that has never been explained without appeals to mystery or contradiction.

Thus leaving anyone who believes in a god stumped (or capable of an incredible degree of suspension of logic and reason).

One small flaw:

"Evil is a test."

Good is able but not willing, and without malevolence. He wants each and everyone to take the chance to show they are "good".

[shawmutt]

A better question is, what do they do when an atheist comes knocking?

John Safran: Door To Door Atheists Bother Mormons (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/54259/detail/)

ETA: I think the video will answer your question. It shows realy Mormons dealing with someone knocking on their doors propigating an idea.

It was pretty funny, but the ape comment and carrying around the Origin of Species as their "holy book" made me cringe a bit.

[RandFan]

Why am I in the world? Is God able to destroy me? Is God willing to destroy me?
If he is able to destroy me but not willing to do so, than he is malevolent. (Basically, he does not destroy me even though he can, therefore he allows me to exist which would make him evil.) This doesn't make any sense.

God created you so turning it around claiming that because god created you and put you in a world where you would could be tortured and suffer it excuses his refusal to intercede to help others?

Really?

The lengths and twisting one must go through to justify evil. It astounds me but then I look around the world and see evil. Is it god or just human rationalization?

God seems compassionate.Yes, children dying is compassionate, sure.

If god allowed me to live forever in this state of evil, that would not be compassionate, overall, for everyone. So God has to cut the time short to be just. Dude, HE made the state. Come on.


As it turned out, the people who we are descended from made a bad mistake and we suffer evil in our lives as a consequence.
An omnipotent being couldn't fix thier mistake and therby preclude us from unjustly suffering from their mistake?

To not do so would be evil.

Can you for a moment step outside of your preconcived notions and consider the ramifications of what you are saying?

[RandFan]

Good is able but not willing, and without malevolence. He wants each and everyone to take the chance to show they are "good".So, you tell your child not to touch the hot plate. Later you see him reaching for it and so you "test" him.

There's a word for such an inaction. Evil.

So, BTK was allowed to torture and murder children to test BTK. Torturing and killing one child wasn't good enough for god though, he had to test BTK again and again.

Here's the problem, what about the free will of the children tortured and murdered by BTK? Is god only interested in the free will of malevolent basterds? I don't know if you are serious or not or if your post was actually tounge in cheek, but if you were serious, why not follow your contention through to it's logical conclusion? Why does your thought process stop as soon as you sooth the dissonancee?

If testing is so damn important, and I don't know why it is, couldn't he have come up with something like Abrahams test only not so sadistic?

I grew up on a chicken farm. We used to candle eggs. We used a small light source like a cangle or flashlight to shine through eggs to find imperfections. It's a hallmark of humans to solve problems. God being omnipotent one would think he could have found a better way.

Why do people make such obviously silly arguments to excuse a god that if it did exist would be the greatest monster of all time?

[shawmutt]

God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.

Terry Pratchett, "Good Omens"

:D

[Foster Zygote]

One small flaw:

"Evil is a test."

Good is able but not willing, and without malevolence. He wants each and everyone to take the chance to show they are "good".

That's still rather a problem for the "God will one day set the world right and evil will be defeated forever" types. Not to mention the "God is omniscient" types.

[Ethnikos]

Anything can be answered. Answers are easy. You are a great example. You've answered many questions I've posed of you. Many if not most of those are are really trite and entirely unconvincing to anyone who does not already believe. You can't see that because you are a believer and your belief fills in the rough spots of illogic and unreason. You won't accept this but I can assure you that you are as unreasonable as any JW or Mormon.Today I am ready to accept that. I see myself as going door to door virtually on different forums. I started out thinking I was being independent and having my own light on subjects. Now, all of a sudden I see myself being like Mormon missionaries, running off to my supervisor to get some answer to a stumper. I am going back to the default belief system when I do not come up with one better. I am not too thrilled about it. I do not need any sort of approval from higher ups, so I am not doing it to keep in the good graces of an organization. I am going back to my pastor because I just do not feel that some of my ideas are especially helpful.
My answer to my personal dilemma should be to do more study and to not become satisfied or complacent. Perhaps realizing that we are not going to know everything, in this lifetime, should not be taken as a justification for holding still, but an incentive to keep going, knowing we are never going to hit a limit, because there is no limit.
Can you for a moment step outside of your preconcived notions and consider the ramifications of what you are saying?Working on it dude. I am realizing how much my thinking is influenced by what I was taught since I was born. Thinking outside the box, to use a popular phrase, is not the easiest thing in the world.

[Pardalis]

What do Jehovah's Witnesses do or say when Mormons come knocking on their door?

And what do Mormons do or say when Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on their door?

This may sound like a joke thread, but I'm genuinely interested.

I wonder which of the two invented "knock knock" jokes.

[RandFan]

Today I am ready to accept that. I see myself as going door to door virtually on different forums. I started out thinking I was being independent and having my own light on subjects. Now, all of a sudden I see myself being like Mormon missionaries, running off to my supervisor to get some answer to a stumper. I am going back to the default belief system when I do not come up with one better. I am not too thrilled about it. I do not need any sort of approval from higher ups, so I am not doing it to keep in the good graces of an organization. I am going back to my pastor because I just do not feel that some of my ideas are especially helpful.

My answer to my personal dilemma should be to do more study and to not become satisfied or complacent. Perhaps realizing that we are not going to know everything, in this lifetime, should not be taken as a justification for holding still, but an incentive to keep going, knowing we are never going to hit a limit, because there is no limit.I've no reason to believe that I've got anything other than this lifetime to be the best person I can be and true to myself. I've no reason to think my time will be well spent talking to religious leaders who've nver revealed anything but their own understanding. If you want post hoc rationalization for an excuse to hold on to your beliefs they can give you that. Anything else is on you I'm affraid.

[Ethnikos]

We used a small light source like a cangle or flashlight to shine through eggs to find imperfections. It's a hallmark of humans to solve problems. God being omnipotent one would think he could have found a better way.God had to allow things to work out in a physical way, for the same reason sceptics will say, "Evidence Please" when Christians make claims about their religion. God is like the big Christian in the sky and he has to have hard evidence to present to a sceptical jury of the heads of all the principalities and powers in the universe. God brings Satan before the bench and puts him on trial. Look at how many people think the serpent did Eve a favor by convincing her to eat of the tree of knowledge. How does God prove to the jury that what this being, Lucifer, the bringer of light, the highest created being in the universe, is deserving of death?
"Well I invented this really great way to test people's character, that I can use and come to a conclusion without having the person ever actually doing anything. Just take my word for it, after all, I am God, and would I lie to you?" Exactly the argument the serpent made.
God would be disqualified as a witness, or at least as a Judge who would have to recuse Himself, because of a conflict of interest.

[RandFan]

"Well I invented this really great way to test people's character, that I can use and come to a conclusion without having the person ever actually doing anything. Just take my word for it, after all, I am God, and would I lie to you?" There is a fatal flaw to your argument (let's leave aside that it's all made up and without reason to believe).

BTK killed children so he could have free will and prove that he was a bastard. The children he killed never got to excercise their free will. Ages when children are murdered are as follows. 1 day - 18 years.

At what point does a child demonstrate his or her free will? If a child is murdered when he or she is 1 day old what happens to that child?

According to your logic the child must be extinguished or go to hell because we can't take god's word for it that the child would have made good choices having been given the chance.

Again, Ethnik, you demonstrate your unwillingness to think your claims through to their logical conclusion because you only need an explanation good enough to resolve your dissonance. At that point you stop asking questions.

[The Greater Fool]

Maybe you can help me out a little. I posed this on another forum where there were four different JWs posting on a regular bases. After posting my question they are mysteriously silent. Maybe they are waiting for one of the others to answer it first.
I understand the part about how on John 1 says the word was God, they interpret it to mean, the word was a god. I would imagine they interpret the rest of it normally. In the beginning was the word. . . all things that are created were created by the word. They believe Jesus created everything other than himself.
The other question I have never had answered by JWs is why it says Jehovah created Adam.

There is some nuance here that I'm afraid I may not remember correctly, but here goes.

Jesus was directly created by God, all other creation was by God through Jesus. This is how Jesus was "with god" when creation of stuff regarding the earth began. It's been a number of years (ack, 30?) since I forsook JWs (and they, me), but I don't recall the fine point on who actually created Adam/Eve, whether it was God or God through Jesus. But, the first sentence is generic doctrine.

The whole God through Jesus creation seemed like theoligical sementic gymnastics that weren't really necessary, until you start arguing with those pesky trinitarians, then it seemed important.

Really, if want the honest to god truth ;) I still have some reference material I kept that I could look up for you. It only burns a little when I touch it ;)

[Ethnikos]

There is some nuance here that I'm afraid I may not remember correctly, but here goes.Thanks for getting back to me. I guess I scared off the people on that other forum because they still have not come back.
The whole God through Jesus creation seemed like theoligical sementic gymnastics that weren't really necessary, until you start arguing with those pesky trinitarians, then it seemed important.It should come up a lot, then. People are always ragging on them over the trinity. Old Arius was rather orthodox and then the "church" changed, under him. Kind of a rotten deal. I have to disagree with Arius if something I recently read about him is true. Someone on a web-site was claiming Arius believed that God created the Son out of nothing. I do not remember reading that when I went through all the books about him, years ago. Jesus said, "I came out of the Father." From what I have looked at in the Greek, he meant exactly that.
Really, if want the honest to god truth ;) I still have some reference material I kept that I could look up for you. It only burns a little when I touch it ;)No, but thanks. I need to get it out of these people who claim to believe in the JW so much.

[Ethnikos]

There is a fatal flaw to your argument, BTK killed children so he could have free will and prove that he was a bastard.
Again, Ethnik, you demonstrate your unwillingness to think your claims through to their logical conclusion because you only need an explanation good enough to resolve your dissonance. At that point you stop asking questions.It is not so much willingness or not, it is that I doubt anyone has ever carried this out all the way.
Anyway, back to BKT, he obviously was (or is) a bastard. He had plenty of time to demonstrate the enormity of his crime. But the kids, they are not on trial. They are pretty much irrelevant to the charges against BTK.
Satan is on trial, or another way of looking at it, God is on trial, for killing Satan. Satan is not dead yet but it is guaranteed he will be, and when he is, God is going to be held responsible, for killing him.
To carry on the story, Lucifer, aka to us Satan, in other places was considered by many to be pretty good. That was why God threw him out of Heaven. He was too influential and God wanted to isolate him before he got the whole universe corrupted by his lies. Well when people wonder what happened to old Lucifer, and find out God killed him, people are going to be pretty upset about it. They are going to need really good evidence he was so bad that he deserved to die. We are pretty close to where there is enough to demonstrate how bad he really is. In the mean time, we who have to live in this hell hole under Satan are not having a very good time. I think we might have a claim to some sort of recompense. Not really the right word. Maybe restitution, for having to be subjects of an experiment gone bad.
What does Jesus say? Give a thirsty person a cup of water and God will repay you. Do that and you will force God to do something. What is the thing people do to get what they want? The court of public opinion. Do something kind and it might be a good idea because it seems to me that the same people who God is concerned about having an opinion about Lucifer, just might have an opinion about someone who tries to make this place just a little less hellish. Jesus said it.

[RandFan]

It is not so much willingness or not, it is that I doubt anyone has ever carried this out all the way.
Anyway, back to BKT, he obviously was (or is) a bastard. He had plenty of time to demonstrate the enormity of his crime. But the kids, they are not on trial. They are pretty much irrelevant to the charges against BTK.
Satan is on trial, or another way of looking at it, God is on trial, for killing Satan. Satan is not dead yet but it is guaranteed he will be, and when he is, God is going to be held responsible, for killing him.
To carry on the story, Lucifer, aka to us Satan, in other places was considered by many to be pretty good. That was why God threw him out of Heaven. He was too influential and God wanted to isolate him before he got the whole universe corrupted by his lies. Well when people wonder what happened to old Lucifer, and find out God killed him, people are going to be pretty upset about it. They are going to need really good evidence he was so bad that he deserved to die. We are pretty close to where there is enough to demonstrate how bad he really is. In the mean time, we who have to live in this hell hole under Satan are not having a very good time. I think we might have a claim to some sort of recompense. Not really the right word. Maybe restitution, for having to be subjects of an experiment gone bad.
What does Jesus say? Give a thirsty person a cup of water and God will repay you. Do that and you will force God to do something. What is the thing people do to get what they want? The court of public opinion. Do something kind and it might be a good idea because it seems to me that the same people who God is concerned about having an opinion about Lucifer, just might have an opinion about someone who tries to make this place just a little less hellish. Jesus said it.I'm not sure what any of this has to do with discussion at hand. You posit that free will is important yet the children don't have free will. BTK took it from them. As for the rest, I've no idea how you know the mind of god. Reading some ancient text and interpreting it to fit your world view hardly seems a rigorous and rational way to determine god's mind. How do you separate your own bias? Why shouldn't I think that this is you talking and not god?

I've read the bible front to back on many occasions. I don't get this from it. Further I don't think anyone could come to any solid conclusions as to the mind of god since the bible is so convaluted and contradictory. One must cherry pick.

[The Greater Fool]

Thanks for getting back to me. I guess I scared off the people on that other forum because they still have not come back.
It should come up a lot, then. People are always ragging on them over the trinity. Old Arius was rather orthodox and then the "church" changed, under him. Kind of a rotten deal. I have to disagree with Arius if something I recently read about him is true. Someone on a web-site was claiming Arius believed that God created the Son out of nothing. I do not remember reading that when I went through all the books about him, years ago. Jesus said, "I came out of the Father." From what I have looked at in the Greek, he meant exactly that.
No, but thanks. I need to get it out of these people who claim to believe in the JW so much.

Oddly, most of the people that were solid trinitarians weren't that interested in discussing it. Really, most people that knew and were solid in their belief weren't real interested in talking. JW's and Mormons are shooting for the slower/weaker part of the heard, still open to re-education.

There are also several directions a discussion of the trinity could go, before or after John 1:1 came into it. Creation wasn't generally one of them becuase there is no dispute that JC was active in creation, either as part of the trinity, or not as part of the trinity. When it comes to Jesus part of creation, you merely need to make it consistent with his overall role, as made in other statetments. Thus, his role in creation is neither here nor there in relation to the Trinity, since both views have him as participating in creation.

Once the Trinity came up as an issue, I tended to go more toward logical arguments against the Trinity. "This is my son, whom I have approved"; "Father, why have you foresaken me", "as for the final hour, only the father knows"... These demonstrate knowledge/feelings the father has that the son is not aware of nor can access, which (to the reasonable reader) would NOT make them co-equal. Then there is the whole idea of a sacrafice that at least part of god understood would be undone by the reserrection. Or, that if "god" was dead who resurrected god? This would seem that at least one aspect of god was left operating, which would make the sacrafice less than complete. As you can see, Creation doesn't come up, and even John 1:1 is more a semantic argument "In the begining was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was [a] god" about the nature of the Word (Jesus) and God, not really who had what role in creation.

What Jesus was created with/of (or the Angels, or Satan) was not one I ever really considered. Jesus and the Angels (in heaven), like god (in heaven) simply came exist at some point by the will of god. The thought that matter was required for either never entered the equation, at least not scripturally, which ignores physics quite frequently. God and Jesus are non-physycal, though Jesus became physical for a time. The Genesis accounts are centered on the creation of earth, so creations outside of that were not in issue.

"I came out of the father", sadly, can and will be interpreted in any number of ways. If meant literally, I doubt any JW would object to that description of JC's creation. That still leaves god eternal and Jesus only slightly less eternal (if you get the humor there). It could mean that JC's purpose came out of his father, or any number of other things.

In the 20 years I was involved deeply with JW's, there came several "clearer understandings" of things. In the 30 years since, I'm told there are other "new understandings" (one of which I was literally accused of working for Satan when I asked about it). So, there may be nits of "understanding" that have been recently made up revealed.

[Ethnikos]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with discussion at hand. You posit that free will is important yet the children don't have free will.
One must cherry pick.I believe in the free will, as in how Man was created. I do not think people have much of a free will, today.
You have to do some highly selective cherry picking to come up with that from the Bible. I will admit that. Once you understand why Satan exists, you have a better idea about what God thinks about it. Maybe it is a result of so much guesswork.
This is one of the things that I brought up to this woman, her name was Muriel, at the Baptist church. I asked her if she thought there was any particular reason why God allows Satan to exist. She said, Satan made his choice to be bad. That was as far as she had ever thought it through.

[RandFan]

I believe in the free will, as in how Man was created. I do not think people have much of a free will, today.
You have to do some highly selective cherry picking to come up with that from the Bible. I will admit that. Once you understand why Satan exists, you have a better idea about what God thinks about it. Maybe it is a result of so much guesswork.
This is one of the things that I brought up to this woman, her name was Muriel, at the Baptist church. I asked her if she thought there was any particular reason why God allows Satan to exist. She said, Satan made his choice to be bad. That was as far as she had ever thought it through.IMO, it's all incoherent. I spent years studying the bible and the more I read the more I realized that I had to fit square pegs into round holes. Once I realized that that it was made up by people it suddenly all made sense.

One of the biggest aha moments of my life was understanding that genesis was one of the most brilliant allegories that had absolutely nothing with creation or god it was amazing. It's a beautiful story about humans understanding right from wrong (a good thing) and discovering their own mortality couched in an allegory.

The bible has been tarted up for many diverse reasons. It's a collection of diverse texts from a larger collection. To think that it exists because god wanted just those texts because it represents god's will or reveals his mind is absurd.

[Ethnikos]

Creation wasn't generally one of them becuase there is no dispute that JC was active in creation, either as part of the trinity, or not as part of the trinity. When it comes to Jesus part of creation, you merely need to make it consistent with his overall role, as made in other statetments. Thus, his role in creation is neither here nor there in relation to the Trinity, since both views have him as participating in creation.

As you can see, Creation doesn't come up, and even John 1:1 is more a semantic argument "In the begining was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was [a] god" about the nature of the Word (Jesus) and God, not really who had what role in creation.

What Jesus was created with/of (or the Angels, or Satan) was not one I ever really considered. Jesus and the Angels (in heaven), like god (in heaven) simply came exist at some point by the will of god. The thought that matter was required for either never entered the equation, at least not scripturally, which ignores physics quite frequently. God and Jesus are non-physycal, though Jesus became physical for a time. The Genesis accounts are centered on the creation of earth, so creations outside of that were not in issue.So, there seems to be three ambiguas things concerning Jesus. 1) How much of a role he had in creating Adam. 2)John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." may not be necessarily about the word. 3) If he was created out of nothing. Since nothing else could have existed, other than God, and since Jesus is spiritual, he could not have beem made out of anything created, anyway.
"I came out of the father", sadly, can and will be interpreted in any number of ways. If meant literally, I doubt any JW would object to that description of JC's creation. That's what I thought. It seems that things are a little fuzzy with them and they probably do not want to take the chance that they may be wrong.

[The Greater Fool]

So, there seems to be three ambiguas things concerning Jesus. 1) How much of a role he had in creating Adam. 2)John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." may not be necessarily about the word. 3) If he was created out of nothing. Since nothing else could have existed, other than God, and since Jesus is spiritual, he could not have beem made out of anything created, anyway.
That's what I thought. It seems that things are a little fuzzy with them and they probably do not want to take the chance that they may be wrong.

JWs are anything but fuzzy on doctrine. Any fuzziness you read is probably mine due to time.

John 1:3. JW's believe this (and everything) literally (or metaphorically if literally is overly silly). Logically, one doesn't create oneself. God was not created, he always has been. God created Jesus, Jesus created everything (else). To get tangled up in the semantic argument Jesus created everything / Jesus is part of everything / jesus created jesus. That makes no sense, so 'obviously' that is not what is meant. Since we are told elsewhere God created Jesus, then 'obviously', "everything" here means "everything else". The issue of who created what is not discussed much simply because there's not much to discuss.

The Genesis account has to do with the creation of Man and the stuff related to him (earth, sky, sun, animals, etc). The creation of Jesus and Angels happenned before all that. Jesus, being firstborn of creation, was first. Then the angels. JC did the rest on Gods behalf, like a foreman. Sorta like buildings, the Archetect gets all the credit, the builders, like JC, were merely the construction company.

In JW shortspeak, God is spoken of as the creator of everything, but when you get down to who did the grunt work, you get the paragraphs preceding this sentence (with more scriptural references in paragraphs) that JC did it at Gods direction.

As to Jesus 'physical' creation in heaven, you end up with the same sort of semantic argument. What is God made of? Whatever God is made of, Jesus is made of that. I don't recall the Bible saying what god is physically made of. But, with the physics of god, neither he nor JC are lessor for the creation. Everything :waves hand encompassing everything: was created of nothing other than the whim to do so.

JW's are definately not afraid of being wrong, they never are. They merely receive new knowledge that corrects old knowledge.

[Ethnikos]

JWs are anything but fuzzy on doctrine.

In JW shortspeak, God is spoken of as the creator of everything, but when you get down to who did the grunt work, you get the paragraphs preceding this sentence (with more scriptural references in paragraphs) that JC did it at Gods direction.Seeing how the JWs I wanted to hear from are still hiding out, I will direct this to you, despite your doing this from memory.
I seems like the "Jesus created everything" is not at all an explanation of how creation happened, but a nice way to get away with Jesus being a created being. Genesis 2:7 clearly states that Jehovah God formed man of the dust.
As to Jesus 'physical' creation in heaven, you end up with the same sort of semantic argument. What is God made of? Whatever God is made of, Jesus is made of that. I don't recall the Bible saying what god is physically made of. If God and Jesus were of the same "substance", it would go along with the the Athanasian Creed which came out of the Council of Nicea, supporting the Trinity and the non-creation of Jesus.

[The Greater Fool]

Seeing how the JWs I wanted to hear from are still hiding out, I will direct this to you, despite your doing this from memory.
I seems like the "Jesus created everything" is not at all an explanation of how creation happened, but a nice way to get away with Jesus being a created being. Genesis 2:7 clearly states that Jehovah God formed man of the dust.
Trump built a Hotel (or time share?) in Las Vegas. This is the sort of semantics you'll deal with.

Collossians 1:15-21 call JC the firstborn of creation, so JW's have at least one scripture backing them up pretty directly. Now, it's just a matter of Christian Mental gymanstics to make him a created co-equal part of god, or God's right hand man, or whatever, as the Bible can be twisted any 'ol way. JW's go with the God's right hand man, which fairly twists the shorts of trinitarians.

NOW, I can see how Christians shoehorned JC into/or between God and Creation. So, it is with some mental gymnastics that when JC becomes the creator of everything, you have to retrofit that into the OT. As a believer, it's amazingly easy to do, in fact, it's rather a requirement.

If God and Jesus were of the same "substance", it would go along with the the Athanasian Creed which came out of the Council of Nicea, supporting the Trinity and the non-creation of Jesus.
God does not exist physically, so is he even made of stuff? When god was the only thing in existence (that would make him everything, no?), when he created JC, he must have used part of his existence, the stuff available. Or I guess he could have created new non-stuff for JC. What God and JC are made of, or the mechanisms of that creation, are neither here nor there, just conjecture, as it is just not addressed in the bible. Even if God and JC are made of the same stuff (or non stuff), it doesn't make them the same entity any more than you and I, or my brother and I, being made of the same stuff make us the same entity.

If you go based on stuff used, at one point God was everything, if JC being created as part of that "everything" makes him part of god in a trinity, then we likewise are part of the the same "everything" used, so would we also by that logic not be part and equal with God? That would make us all part of a Polyune god, cool. No, common building blocks does not make us part of the same being, even on the physical plane, we are not equal to and part of a rock

Gosh, I never thought I'd be on this side of this discussion again. :)

[Ethnikos]

Trump built a Hotel (or time share?) in Las Vegas. This is the sort of semantics you'll deal with.If everything is so ambiguous, why go to all the trouble of being so specific? Like I said above, all the arguing serves only one purpose, and that is to make Jesus a created being.

Collossians 1:15-21 call JC the firstborn of creation, so JW's have at least one scripture backing them up pretty directly. Now, it's just a matter of Christian Mental gymanstics to make him a created co-equal part of god, or God's right hand man, or whatever, as the Bible can be twisted any 'ol way. JW's go with the God's right hand man, which fairly twists the shorts of trinitarians.Christians were historicly triniterian befor Nicea and the Athenesian Creed. It is the enforcement of the "co-equal" and "co-eternal" according to a specific formula, that was new, after that Council.

NOW, I can see how Christians shoehorned JC into/or between God and Creation. So, it is with some mental gymnastics that when JC becomes the creator of everything, you have to retrofit that into the OT. As a believer, it's amazingly easy to do, in fact, it's rather a requirement.
To repeat myself, they do an incomplete job of it, in my opinion, and only do enough to protect what seems like the core of their purpose, which is to demote the status of Jesus from being fully God.

God does not exist physically, so is he even made of stuff? When god was the only thing in existence (that would make him everything, no?), when he created JC, he must have used part of his existence, the stuff available. Or I guess he could have created new non-stuff for JC. What God and JC are made of, or the mechanisms of that creation, are neither here nor there, just conjecture, as it is just not addressed in the bible. Even if God and JC are made of the same stuff (or non stuff), it doesn't make them the same entity any more than you and I, or my brother and I, being made of the same stuff make us the same entity.God is not an entity, in the strict use of the word. God is not made of stuff. I would only use those words to try to illustrate an interaction, not the reality of it as far as defining the elements of the interaction.

If you go based on stuff used, at one point God was everything, if JC being created as part of that "everything" makes him part of god in a trinity, then we likewise are part of the the same "everything" used, so would we also by that logic not be part and equal with God? That would make us all part of a Polyune god, cool. No, common building blocks does not make us part of the same being, even on the physical plane, we are not equal to and part of a rockThat argument dispels the idea of a common building block, for people, or anything else created. If you follow the description of man's creation in genesis, you see man as the fundamental building block of creation. That is a possible argument against Jesus having that position. We were meant to be gods, in the material world. Jesus is the originator of creation, so has a position above creation.
Gosh, I never thought I'd be on this side of this discussion again. :)Just don't get to where you feel like you are being disloyal. You do not owe any organization loyalty. That is the Catholic church that demands that sort of thing. I think you are free to analyse their doctrine all you want. Seeing as how active JWs are no too inclined to defend themselves on a forum like this, you may be able to be of service to others who might fall into the comfort of belonging to some group who claims to have all the answers.
I am not into knocking JWs as persons, or as an organization. I just have problems with their teachings, that from my perspective have fatal errors.

[ParrotPirate]

What do Jehovah's Witnesses do or say when Mormons come knocking on their door?

And what do Mormons do or say when Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on their door?

This may sound like a joke thread, but I'm genuinely interested.

Actually, if either of those things were to happen,a rift in time/space would open andboth the Mormon and the Witness would disappear with a rather wettish sticky sounding pop.

[The Greater Fool]

If everything is so ambiguous, why go to all the trouble of being so specific? Like I said above, all the arguing serves only one purpose, and that is to make Jesus a created being.
I went into the details attempting to answer your questions with the caveat that it was all ambiguous to begin with. Then you call it ambiguous and question the details. I have the sense of going in cirlces.

To them, the Bible makes it pretty clear JC was created, as were the angels, even though the details of that creation are not there.

*I* think the bible is sufficiently ambigious to prove whatever you want, which was one of my first steps to atheism. You seemed to be asking for the JW explanation, and I did my best to give the JW POV, in basic terms.

You reference the Council of Nicea a lot, and when it comes to the nature of god, order of creation, etc. they are coming up with what they think are reasonable explanations for the ambigious, unexplained, or the unclear, from Biblical and other sources, just as JW's try to do. In point of fact, most religions/sects try to answer, or at least address, those basic points.

Christians were historicly triniterian befor Nicea and the Athenesian Creed. It is the enforcement of the "co-equal" and "co-eternal" according to a specific formula, that was new, after that Council.
JW's disgregard all of this. 'False Religion' was well established by this point, and the Council of Nicea would be part of that. JW's can point at scripture and 'history' (the part that agrees with them) that make Christians historically NON-trinitiarian.

To repeat myself, they do an incomplete job of it, in my opinion, and only do enough to protect what seems like the core of their purpose, which is to demote the status of Jesus from being fully God.
You know, I read/hear this certainty from most every sect. They would say that 'fase religion' has tried to promote the triune god that existed in pre-existing false religion. I've scripture swapped, and back when I was a believer, the scriptures I quoted were obvious, and the trinitarian scriptures weren't. I've learned the scriptures line up pretty closely to what you (general) want you want to believe.

I quoted one scripture that was pretty unambiguous about JC being created. Trinitarians explain it away, as JW's explain away the trinitarian supporting scriptures.

God is not an entity, in the strict use of the word. God is not made of stuff. I would only use those words to try to illustrate an interaction, not the reality of it as far as defining the elements of the interaction.
See, now we've left any basis for discussion. To say god is NOT an entity just tells me we are speaking different languages. The bible describes god as an individual with personality, that to *me* says 'entity'.

For God to exist, he must be something. Again, that is pretty much a definition of existance as far as I can see. We may not be able to understand the stuff of God, in fact that seems part of the definition of
God. Which is all part of why I'm atheist.

That argument dispels the idea of a common building block, for people, or anything else created. If you follow the description of man's creation in genesis, you see man as the fundamental building block of creation. That is a possible argument against Jesus having that position. We were meant to be gods, in the material world. Jesus is the originator of creation, so has a position above creation.
Again, here we are speaking different languages. Man is the basic building block? This makes no sense, in any sense, to *me*. And of all creation? I'm sure this is just my lack, but man was created on the 6th day? That means 5 days of creation took place before man. Man could not be a "buiding block" of creation if the rest of creation was created before man, at least as I understand the meaning of "building block." How do you use man as a building block in days 1 to 5 when he wasn't created until 6?

Now, if you want to say man was the "purpose" of creation, Ok. If this is you point, then by the definition of your point, you are excluding the creation of heavenly creatures as part of that purpose. In this sense, sure, JC and the angels are not created as part of the purpose of creating mankind. I think this is talking in circles, but if that's your point, then you've only removed JC and other heavenly creatures from being part of "man's creation", but not from being created at all.

Really, all this sounds like circular semantics to me.

Just don't get to where you feel like you are being disloyal. You do not owe any organization loyalty. That is the Catholic church that demands that sort of thing. I think you are free to analyse their doctrine all you want. Seeing as how active JWs are no too inclined to defend themselves on a forum like this, you may be able to be of service to others who might fall into the comfort of belonging to some group who claims to have all the answers.
I don't feel disloyal, remembering that I'm an atheist, I'm already the antichrist to half my family. I just didn't think I'd ever be arguing their side again. In fact, arguing this side is part of why I'm not on this side anymore.

IF I were still a JW, and likely why you're not getting any response from JW's, is that you are not interested in learning what JW's have to say, only in proving to them that what you have to say is right. They arene't terribly interested in that, as they already know "the truth" (TM). Were I a JW, my time would be better spent 1) studying the bible; and 2) talking to people that are looking for answers that JW's claim to have. JW's would call you and most here "Satan's timewasters."

JW's that would talk here would end up sounding like Kurious Kathy, just with more scripture quoted.

I am not into knocking JWs as persons, or as an organization. I just have problems with their teachings, that from my perspective have fatal errors.
From JW perspective, every other religion/sect is 'false religion'. They can prove to their satisfaction, and they can disprove others to their satisfaction. Not to yours. Nor you to theirs.

I mean, really, isn't the point of virtually every religion/sect that every other religion/sect has something wrong? If all this stuff were that straightforward, there would be one obvious religion, or one Christian sect. There isn't because they all prove to their own satisfaction that they are right and the others are wrong.

[RandFan]

I am not into knocking JWs as persons, or as an organization. I just have problems with their teachings, that from my perspective have fatal errors.
Ethnikos, they all have fatal errors.

[Ethnikos]

I went into the details attempting to answer your questions with the caveat that it was all ambiguous to begin with. Then you call it ambiguous and question the details. I have the sense of going in cirlces.I sure hope you did not think I was talking about you.
I was talking about the doctrines. Everything is fuzzy, except when it comes down to the one thing. Then it becomes very sharp and clear.
JW organization exists for one purpose, to claim that Jesus is not God.
Who is he? An Archon? They are bound in chains in darkness.
So Jesus is not one of them. God is before us, but before Him is what is called His Son. Being the representation of God, as in what God is or does, does not, in this case make whatever this representation is, not God.
Idols are representations but they are not gods themselves. That is because what they represent is not a god itself.
A real God has a representation of himself who is a god.
So what do we have? A God, and another God? The two are the same thing. Being the one does not mean you are not the other. That is impossible in the physical world. God is spirit. He is not physical or a person or a being. The representation of God can be. How can that be? Because He is God.
Do not take this personally. Sorry about that. The problem is that in a certain sense, Jesus was created. But, he came out of God, and is God.
Can God create Himself as a walking talking entity and an individual, and still be something vastly more glorious than what you see? I think so.

[Ethnikos]

Ethnikos, they all have fatal errors.
Are you saying that because I seem to be too picky?
I normally stick up for JW's on forums.
I am not a fan of Constantine, at all or his little council.
They guy was power mad and that meant in religion too.
JW's are about the only people who have the guts to call BS on the Nicene Creed and all the ridiculousness that came out of it, like hundreds of years of war.
True Christianity has always been an underground movement.
Worldly splendor is worse than rags to God.
The simplicity of the JW's should be a constant reminder of how far we are from the truth.

[Ethnikos]

IIF I were still a JW, and likely why you're not getting any response from JW's, is that you are not interested in learning what JW's have to say, only in proving to them that what you have to say is right. They arene't terribly interested in that, as they already know "the truth" (TM). Were I a JW, my time would be better spent 1) studying the bible; and 2) talking to people that are looking for answers that JW's claim to have. JW's would call you and most here "Satan's timewasters."
Again, I do not mean to offend you. It probably sounded like I was attacking you personally. I did not mean that. You are helpful and I appreciate the time you spent responding.
I have to think that maybe the word went forward and called off the JW's that were discussing with me on that other forum. I think I was being respectful to them and calmly argued my points. Like I said, I find myself in agreement with then more than not.
Don't worry about offending me. You could easily say I am wasting my time here too. Unlike my former conversationalists of the other persuasion, my pastor is praying for me and thinks I am doing a ministry. That's maybe the difference. We are to find the lost, not get Christians to switch affiliations. I would never tell anyone to join my church. Everyone needs to fix things where they are. We can be in a building and not be in Babylon, as long as we work against what is wrong.
There may be an exception to the rule and that may be the Catholic church. They have a thing about swearing fidelity to the Pope, which no one should do, or even set foot into a place that advocates such a thing. You are better being an atheist than to do that. That's just my opinion. If you believe in goodness then you believe in God, even if you do not think so.
Oops. I guess I should comment on all the rest of what you wrote. Good, and I think you are in a place ahead of the vast majority of people.

[The Greater Fool]

I sure hope you did not think I was talking about you.
I was talking about the doctrines. Everything is fuzzy, except when it comes down to the one thing. Then it becomes very sharp and clear.
JW organization exists for one purpose, to claim that Jesus is not God.
I know you aren't talking about me, I am not a JW.

Some things ARE fuzzy, there is no indication of when, why, the mechanisms, of the creation of JC and the Angels. Only hints. But, on the point that JC is created, the Bible DOES take a position, a clear one, depending on your POV.

JW organization exists for one purpose, and it is the same purpose as every other religion. To spread their version of 'the truth' (tm).

Who is he? An Archon? They are bound in chains in darkness.
So Jesus is not one of them. God is before us, but before Him is what is called His Son.
God is eternal. JC is the firstborn of creation, thus was created, and is immortal. Before his human life, he existed as an heavenly creature, as he exists now as a heavenly creature.

Being the representation of God, as in what God is or does, does not, in this case make whatever this representation is, not God.
Idols are representations but they are not gods themselves. That is because what they represent is not a god itself. A real God has a representation of himself who is a god.
You are trying to create semantic issues, then limiting yourself in the puzzle you've created. This has nothing to do with JW doctrine, but how their doctrine does or doesn't fit in with your artificially constricting and incomplete semantic puzzle.

Yes, Jesus is a representitive of God. Just as I represent my employer in certain matters, even exercise his power in some matters. I am not an Idol of him, nor do people confuse me with my employer. At the same time, I am also an employer in my own right.

JC can be a representitive of God without being an idol, and without being god.

So what do we have? A God, and another God? The two are the same thing. Being the one does not mean you are not the other. That is impossible in the physical world. God is spirit. He is not physical or a person or a being. The representation of God can be. How can that be? Because He is God.
You just walked yourself in a nice circle there. You've made this same point multiple times, each time it is flawed. My employer is an employer, I am an employer, we are not the same person. I'm going to deconstruct this part sentence by sentence.

Let's say "yes, we have God, and another God". God, is a title, a description of an entity. There are other gods spoken of in the OT, and the writers and readers seemed to understand what they were talking about, and that there could be more than one, and that they weren't the same one. Many religions deal with the concept of multiple, gods of greater and lesser power, greater and lesser morality. From a human standpoint, JC, Satan, and all the other Angels and Demons have the powers of gods.

You are declaring all gods are equal, that there can only be one, therefore they are all the same one.

The Bible seems to make it quite clear that god is a 'being', he exists. 'Entity' or 'being' are about as broad and generic as I can get to describe a existing, thinking thing. He may be 'undefinable' but the Bible does give plenty of text desribing his attributes.

Do not take this personally. Sorry about that. The problem is that in a certain sense, Jesus was created. But, he came out of God, and is God.
I'm not taking it personally. This is what JWs say, except for your last leap that because he came out of god, he is god. Again, because JC came from god does not make him god, any more than any other part of creation (all of it having come from god) is god, any more than I am my father.

Can God create Himself as a walking talking entity and an individual, and still be something vastly more glorious than what you see? I think so.
Now, you qibbled at my use of 'entity', and here it is.

We can all think what we want of the nature of god. Even Christians can make up what they want to believe, even though their opinions should be informed from the Bible.

[The Greater Fool]

Again, I do not mean to offend you. It probably sounded like I was attacking you personally. I did not mean that. You are helpful and I appreciate the time you spent responding.
You didn't offend me, I hope I didn't offend. I was only telling you why you are not likely to get the response you want. Most JW's that could answer, and parry and thrust in debate wouldn't likely take the time to do so.

I have to think that maybe the word went forward and called off the JW's that were discussing with me on that other forum. I think I was being respectful to them and calmly argued my points. Like I said, I find myself in agreement with then more than not.
I doubt their lack of response is because the word is out on you. I still have access to the JW "list" and you're not on it ;) More likely, they lost interest in an argument that, if this thread is any sort of gage, was not going to get anywhere (or anywhere interesting).

Don't worry about offending me. You could easily say I am wasting my time here too. Unlike my former conversationalists of the other persuasion, my pastor is praying for me and thinks I am doing a ministry. That's maybe the difference. We are to find the lost, not get Christians to switch affiliations. I would never tell anyone to join my church. Everyone needs to fix things where they are. We can be in a building and not be in Babylon, as long as we work against what is wrong.

This is probably why they aren't responding. Certainly, as I said in other threads, I wouldn't invest the time in this discussion unless 1) you were near the corner and I wanted to spend enough time with you so we didn't have time to start another street; 2) I wanted to test my arguments; 3) the mood struck me.

There may be an exception to the rule and that may be the Catholic church. They have a thing about swearing fidelity to the Pope, which no one should do, or even set foot into a place that advocates such a thing. You are better being an atheist than to do that. That's just my opinion. If you believe in goodness then you believe in God, even if you do not think so.

Oops. I guess I should comment on all the rest of what you wrote. Good, and I think you are in a place ahead of the vast majority of people.
JW's have a similar attitude toward the Catholic Church. It is a nice, easy to nail boogeyman. JW's also believe they are "the truth" (tm) and are similarly not above telling people what they believe so they can dismantle it.

[scimystic]

I think it would be kinda like vampire meets werewolf. Thought in both minds: "Damn, he's already a monster". [Snarl. Show fangs. Back away slowly].

[RandFan]

Are you saying that because I seem to be too picky?No. I'm saying it because it is true. The bible is as porus as a sieve. A thousand people can read it and come up with a thousand interepretations. That's a real problem. In fact, it's a fatal flaw. There's no way to objectively know what is the truth.

[Ethnikos]

I know you aren't talking about me, I am not a JW. I guess I am a little frustrated because I spent at least a year arguing this stuff out. When I thought I had it down to where exactly the sticking point was, they disappeared off the forum. I guess the only people willing to discus what I thought I found are former JW.
Some things ARE fuzzy, there is no indication of when, why, the mechanisms, of the creation of JC and the Angels. Only hints. But, on the point that JC is created, the Bible DOES take a position, a clear one, depending on your POV.I was willing to concede that point, with the stipulation that Jesus was created out of God. That was the time of the great disappearing of JW's from that forum. They must believe that can not be true, considering the reaction I got, which was silence.
JW organization exists for one purpose, and it is the same purpose as every other religion. To spread their version of 'the truth' (tm).
I am being a little harsh there. My cousin is convinced that the JW religion was started by Jesuit agents to cause confusion within the Protestants.
I am related to and was best friends with JW's and I do not think they are bad intended and feel they are doing good, as persons.
God is eternal. JC is the firstborn of creation, thus was created, and is immortal. Before his human life, he existed as an heavenly creature, as he exists now as a heavenly creature. This is one of the major issues I was debating. Eternal vs. Immortal.
You are trying to create semantic issues, then limiting yourself in the puzzle you've created. This has nothing to do with JW doctrine, but how their doctrine does or doesn't fit in with your artificially constricting and incomplete semantic puzzle.It is not a perfect explanation and it is probably like you say, a puzzle of my own invention. I think the closest thing to explaining God would have to be in the form of a puzzle.
Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." He was acting as a representative of God, but beyond that, he was a representation of God. Thomas throws himself down at the feet of Jesus and exclaims, "My Lord and my God!" At that moment, Jesus was standing in as God.
The puzzle is, can a man, who existed before he was a man, be sent from God to represent Him, and despite all that, also be God? Does representing God disqualify you from being God?
A JW might say, "God is there, in heaven, where everyone can see him. He does not have to have a representation of himself as a visible something. God is visible."
I would gave to disagree. Hebrews says that the Son is the radiance of the glory of God. The "glory" is too much for anyone to look at, but the radiance could be looked at. A forge for melting metal for casting is not something you would want to stick your head into, to look at how things are going. You would not have a face, all of a sudden. But you could look at it from a distance and see the glow, and know something is molten in it.
Yes, Jesus is a representative of God. Just as I represent my employer in certain matters, even exercise his power in some matters. I am not an Idol of him, nor do people confuse me with my employer. At the same time, I am also an employer in my own right. Ok.
JC can be a representitive of God without being an idol, and without being god.A prophet can stand in for God by saying, "Thus sayeth the Lord,. . ."
You just walked yourself in a nice circle there. You've made this same point multiple times, each time it is flawed. My employer is an employer, I am an employer, we are not the same person. I'm going to deconstruct this part sentence by sentence.I did because there is not something analygas to it in the physical world. God exists. You could say that, but look at the definition: to have actual being. That does not necessarily mean you are a being. I would argue God could have being, but not be a being. The problem is you have someone going around representing himself as if he was God. Who is that? And does he have a right to make that claim?
To a JW, there is no problem because that was Jehovah. But when you read the accounts in the prophets and the New testament, they pull away from the idea that it really was God, back with Moses. They will make out like it was agents of God at work.
Using the same concept, Jesus could claim to be God, as a representation of God as he would be if he was a man. Now does that make him not God? No, is my answer. What if Moses said, "Hey, you. There in the burning bush. What was that you say? You are Jehovah? Don't give me that bunk. I know you are really just an angel, sent to be the representation of God" How smart would that have been. Moses later goes up on the Mount and communes with God and God writes on the tablet. Would Moses say, "Ahah! Busted dude! I just saw your finger. You are not God. How could I just see your finger, if you were God?" Would Moses be showing how clever he was? No, he would be an idiot.
Let's say "yes, we have God, and another God". God, is a title, a description of an entity. There are other gods spoken of in the OT, and the writers and readers seemed to understand what they were talking about, and that there could be more than one, and that they weren't the same one. Many religions deal with the concept of multiple, gods of greater and lesser power, greater and lesser morality. From a human standpoint, JC, Satan, and all the other Angels and Demons have the powers of gods.True.
You are declaring all gods are equal, that there can only be one, therefore they are all the same one.I'm guessing that is a question. The answer is, no. Not at all. I am saying the actual God, the all powerful and highest God, is not putting himself on exhibit. If we were in heaven and saw someone sitting on the throne of God and claiming to be God, that would be the Son of God, which would make him for practical purposes, God.
The Bible seems to make it quite clear that god is a 'being', he exists. 'Entity' or 'being' are about as broad and generic as I can get to describe a existing, thinking thing. He may be 'undefinable' but the Bible does give plenty of text describing his attributes.Ok fine. This goes back to the fuzziness thing. These are all representations of God.
I'm not taking it personally. This is what JWs say, except for your last leap that because he came out of god, he is god. Again, because JC came from god does not make him god, any more than any other part of creation (all of it having come from god) is god, any more than I am my father.Good! That's it! Now take this to your relatives and present that, just like you said. See how that works. You can say "here is this great argument I made against an evil JW basher on the internet" See if you get praised or thought of as a heretic. Let me know how it goes.
We can all think what we want of the nature of god. Even Christians can make up what they want to believe, even though their opinions should be informed from the Bible.A lot of stuff is made up. I think I have right to do some of that. My policy is to exhaust all avenues of being informed, before resorting to using your imagination. Doing that prematurely is a mistake. All this stuff is things I have studied extensively for years. The last avenue is to do what I am doing now. You are kind of like the last bit that I can expect.

[Ethnikos]

I doubt their lack of response is because the word is out on you. I still have access to the JW "list" and you're not on it ;) More likely, they lost interest in an argument that, if this thread is any sort of gage, was not going to get anywhere (or anywhere interesting). Tell me if jref forums on Religion and Philosophy is on the list. That would be interesting. Do they mention anything about the internet, like different sites to avoid? Do they mention anything about posting on religion forums?
This is probably why they aren't responding. Certainly, as I said in other threads, I wouldn't invest the time in this discussion unless 1) you were near the corner and I wanted to spend enough time with you so we didn't have time to start another street; 2) I wanted to test my arguments; 3) the mood struck me.I have been screamed at in a textual way for being frustrating. I get that, or just boring. But they bailed out of the whole site. That is what is a little strange. Going like crazy one day and then just gone the next.

[Ethnikos]

No. I'm saying it because it is true. The bible is as porus as a sieve. A thousand people can read it and come up with a thousand interepretations. That's a real problem. In fact, it's a fatal flaw. There's no way to objectively know what is the truth.
God made it that way so he can destroy us. If there was a book that said "on the tenth day after a solar eclipse that is only visible from the corner of the great sea, there will be a volcanic eruption where the smoke blackens the sky of this one city, then a month after that, the hoards will come through the eastern pass and will kill many people especially anyone not wearing a pure white robe and not having their hair tied up into a hat" how could god kill anyone?

[RandFan]

God made it that way so he can destroy us. If there was a book that said "on the tenth day after a solar eclipse that is only visible from the corner of the great sea, there will be a volcanic eruption where the smoke blackens the sky of this one city, then a month after that, the hoards will come through the eastern pass and will kill many people especially anyone not wearing a pure white robe and not having their hair tied up into a hat" how could god kill anyone?I'm guessing this is parody. If not then I've honestly no clue and I don't know what this has to do with my post but, ok.

[Ethnikos]

I'm guessing this is parody. If not then I've honestly no clue and I don't know what this has to do with my post but, ok.I guess it is a really bad analogy. In my hypothetical world with a wonderful provable book of prophecy, what kind of a world would it be?
What could be the purpose of holy books and religion? How could you charge someone with unbelief unless there was something to either believe in or not believe in? If it was this unmistakable set of facts, how would there be any room to ever doubt it. Everyone would just follow it because it would be stupid not to.

[The Greater Fool]

I may be just too thick for the points you're making. Perhaps my mistake was coming in on the middle of your discussion. I tried explained what JW's believe (quite accurately), and addressed why they would object to some of your thoughts. I'm not sure what more I can add or muddle ;)

[RandFan]

I guess it is a really bad analogy. In my hypothetical world with a wonderful provable book of prophecy, what kind of a world would it be?
What could be the purpose of holy books and religion? How could you charge someone with unbelief unless there was something to either believe in or not believe in? If it was this unmistakable set of facts, how would there be any room to ever doubt it. Everyone would just follow it because it would be stupid not to.Ok, let's go with that.

If I were god how would I test someone for faith (not sure why belief is important but fine)?

First, I would be damn sure that my holy book didn't contain a lot of nonsense. It wouldn't be filled to the brim with genocide, homicide and lots of prescriptions for killing in general. I wouldn't condone slavery or ask my prophet to kill his son. I WOULD TELL PEOPLE TO BOIL WATER. Sorry but that one really gets me. I wouldn't act jealously or arrogantly. I wouldn't display petty emotions. I would see to it that my words were logically and morally consistent. I would champion equality and tolerance (from the start). My system of justice would include both commensurate (eye for an eye) punishment and prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (rendering eye for an eye as metaphor only). I probably would skip that metaphor in fact (though it was an improvement at the time).

My book would never contain orders to kill children nor would I kill children. My book would never belittle or demean women. It would never create racial division or strike land deals.

In short, my book would roughly match the moral philosophy of modern liberal democracies and not be ever changing to match the morality of the times they were written in.

No need to reveal my hand (cards) just provide an unambiguous moral framework.

BTW: Do you ever watch Mr. Diety (http://www.mrdeity.com/)?

[Ethnikos]

I may be just too thick for the points you're making. Perhaps my mistake was coming in on the middle of your discussion. I tried explained what JW's believe (quite accurately), and addressed why they would object to some of your thoughts. I'm not sure what more I can add or muddle ;)Thanks. Don't worry about it. I apparently need to work on this concept, to get it to where it is easier to understand.

[Ethnikos]

If I were god how would I test someone for faith (not sure why belief is important but fine)?Belief in the Bible can not be a test. There are principles in the Bible that could be the bases for a test. If it was not possible to learn those principles otherwise, it would be helpful to get them there.
I am sure there will be millions of people who will be in heaven who never could read, or ever saw a Bible, or even knew such a thing existed.
BTW: Do you ever watch mrdeity.comNo. Never heard of it 'til now.

[oldhat]

A group of about six or eight middle aged to elderly (black and Latino) Jehovah's Witnesses hand out the Watchtower at my subway station every morning like clockwork. They're always perfectly polite and we say always good morning to each other.

I don't think it's kind to make fun of or tease them if they're not being hostile. If nothing else, they are perfectly sincere, which is more than you can say for 90% of society. The same goes for Mormon missionaries. I just tell them I'm not interested. They're just kids, after all.

I have to hand it to the Mormon kids, it takes a certain quantity of sack to be a random white kid from Podunk, Utah and walk around West Adams, L.A. (my old neighborhood) in a white button down and a nametag knocking on doors. I don't understand their religion or why they're doing it but ultimately they're just people too.

There was a time when skeptics and freethinkers were mocked, persecuted and even murdered for their beliefs, or lack thereof. I don't think we should make the same mistake towards them as society gradually becomes more secular. They're just people, too, as confused and searching for meaning and truth as we are.

That's the humanist in me talking.

[Wolrab]

I live about 6 miles from Hill Cumorah. The pageant starts in two days (2009 Performances: July 10,11,14-18). I have attended a couple of them back in the days of my youth when hallucinogens enhanced the light show. I was always nice to the people there and tried my damnedest not to get the giggles. These days I mostly get caught up in the traffic that ensues when thousands of cars depart at the end of the show.

The JW's and other christian sects protest on the shoulder of NYS Rt. 21 as close as possible to where the crowds must cross the road. Some of the protesters can be loud, but they usually just mill about with their placards.

A few years ago, after a gig in a bar in Palmyra, I was caught up in the traffic and was able to read a few of the posters. One made me laugh out loud because it said something along the lines of, "There is NO archeological evidence of an ancient American Jewish civilization!"

I thought it pretty funny that JWs would be using science to counter Mormon beliefs. I couldn't help but wonder what they would say if someone used a similar tactic against them at one of their events.

I will try to get some pictures of the protesters this year if I can. I may possibly even attend the pageant and talk to some of the spectators and protesters (sans hallucinogens). If I do, I will post an update.

[Wolrab]

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who owns a video production company. He was very receptive to the idea of video taping protesters and attendees of the Hill Cumorah Pageant.
We would do this without mocking them. The idea is to let them do the talking. It should be a hoot.
What I would like from you guys and gals, are questions I could ask to get the subjects going. I'm pretty sure just a little nudge in the right direction will get some hilarious responses.
Any ideas?
I would, of course, post the clips for your viewing pleasure.

[Fizzer]

A few years ago, after a gig in a bar in Palmyra, I was caught up in the traffic and was able to read a few of the posters. One made me laugh out loud because it said something along the lines of, "There is NO archeological evidence of an ancient American Jewish civilization!"

I thought it pretty funny that JWs would be using science to counter Mormon beliefs. I couldn't help but wonder what they would say if someone used a similar tactic against them at one of their events.

Are you absolutely sure those were Jehovah's Witnesses? That would be a very unusual thing for a JW to do.

[Wolrab]

Are you absolutely sure those were Jehovah's Witnesses? That would be a very unusual thing for a JW to do.
Yup, you are right, I misremembered. These were just run of the mill(erite!) evangelical Christians. It has been at least a decade since I worked in Palmyra. My bad.

[Wolrab]

I was able to take a few photos of the protesters at the Hill Cumorah Pageant last night as I was being driven by. Most of the protesters were sitting on the side of the road with signs for what mormons don't tell you . com and several were holding picket signs. One man was facing the parking field using a bull horn to tell the attendees that they were going to hell. A young man about 50 feet from him (with a what mormons don't tell sign) shook his head and told me, "We're not with them."

The attendees were pretty far from the protesters and there was no real interaction that I saw. I drove by just before dark and I do not know if the dope with the bull horn kept blathering during the show. It would have been pointless as the show is a couple of hundred yards away and very loud.

I have some pictures if anybody gives a crap. I could link them if asked.