A good friend is considering joining the Jehovah's Witnesses. What should he worry about?

Freerepublic ^ | 1/31/2013 | Me

[Dallas59]

When I come by my friends house they are always there. They are polite to me but act like I'm interfering. Anyone here associated with them or been to their church? Thanks.

[Mrs.Liberty]

One of my childhood friends became one after she became an adult—mid twenties. All I remember is she couldn’t come to my wedding because it was in a church, and when her youngest brother was killed in a car crash, she would not attend the funeral because of the church service.

[Campion]

A book your friend needs to read ASAP

[JCBreckenridge]

Fine, then. When did the Catholic church originate?

[JCBreckenridge]

Would not the teaching that some books are not canon count as ‘preaching any other gospel?’

[sasportas]

The Catholic Church is an ancient monarchy? Who then is the monarch, or king? And where is is his throne? I see one in post 110, is that it?

[Campion]

You seen an earthly monarch who represents a heavenly monarch as his deputy, obviously.

On the other hand, with the JWs, you see men who think they represent God to the extent that they can order a mother and father not to speak to their son for his unspeakable crimes of (a) becoming Catholic; and (b) joining the Marines. (The young gentleman in question is a friend of mine; I'm not just making up a story.)

So who is really claiming to be more than they are ... a man who wears a robe and sits on a fancy chair, or one who destroys a family?

[Revolting cat!]

Got hate?

[Salvation]

Christ the King. King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

[fatima]

Years ago one of my best friends was a Jehovah Witnesses.She got Breast Cancer and refused blood transfusion and died at 35.Left behind Husband and 2 young children.

[Daffy]

JWs; the Happy Home for those who cannot think for themselves, and have no desire to learn how. They have association with others most like themselves, and therein find an insulated life of friendship, contentment and satisfaction. It may be the best thing for the feeble minded, to know with certainty and great comfort, that they belong to the One True Religion, no matter what the rest of the world may say. Think of the benefits; never having to throw or attend parties, give or exchange gifts, or give a moment’s thought to the sorrows of Hell. What’s not to like about that? All they need do is go knocking on doors, in hope to find one or several more confused minds like themselves.

I don’t mean to say JWs are stupid, or are without competence. Rather, they lack capacity for independent thought, or analytical thinking, and are better suited to a smaller closed society. The Amish live without connection to the electrical grid, and they seem to be decent God-fearing folk in their own closed society.

God is not likely to condemn an idiot for doing idiotic things. If your friend believes he is giving honor and worship to God, our Lord may give consideration. You may have to tell your friend “toot-a-loo;” it may be the best thing for him, and you. (Am I being insensitive?)

[ejonesie22]

Me thinks pointing out the short comings of the JWs doesn’t sit well with a true believer and or fellow cultist. Well what does one expect when they fallow a false idea that steals from a legitimate faith.

[Excellence]

By now, those coveted 144,000 spots have to be filled. Everyone else simply dies. No afterlife.

Actually, everybody else is resurrected back to life on earth, to live happily ever after on a paradise earth.

[ducttape45]

Dude, you have to get them away from your friend as soon as possible. Then you have to show him and fundamental differences between the Catholic and Jehovah Witness's religions. There are many places on the Internet that can demonstrate the difference.

Most of all, you have to be able to show him that what you are doing is out love and respect for him, and not out of hate for the JWs.

Please, I implore you, do this as soon as possible. Let me know if you need some help with resources.

[MeOnTheBeach]

Would not the teaching that some books are not canon count as ‘preaching any other gospel?

Only if first you can establish that the canon you are referring to was actually compiled by God and not man.

[MeOnTheBeach]

We were saying the the JWs belong to a heterodox manmade religion which lies about Scripture (they deliberately mistranslate John 1:1 and John 8:58, for starters).

Well I'm not going to speculate on their motivations. I don't see any difference with what the JWs have done and what the evangelicals have done in creating all these new Bible translations.

You seem to be saying that it bothers you that the Catholic church is an ancient monarchy, clearly not something founded in 19th Century America. **Guilty as charged**

What bothers me is that the history of the Catholic church doesn't measure up to it's claims of divine authorship.

The Pope is not God, and "Holy Father" is not God's name. But which is worse, to make the Pope seem a little too close to God, or to make Jesus Christ less than God?

Your words don't really make sense. "Holy Father" is most certainly a title of "God the Father".

You're right the Pope is not God, but we read in the Bible of God sitting on His throne. Then we see the Pope sitting on a high gold throne, dressed in fine clothing, and being called "Holy Father". What's wrong with this picture?

There is nothing in that picture that resembles the humble followers that Jesus commanded us to be.

Do you really believe that Jesus would ever instruct any man ever born on this earth, to sit on a high gold throne, dress in gold clothing, have people come up and kneel before him, and call himself "Holy Father"?

Would Jesus give any living man the title of "Holy" anything?

The greatest prophets to ever live; people like Moses, Abraham, Noah, Job, Paul, John the Revelator, never sat on gold thrones, and never were called "Holy" anything.

Just because people go around saying "Lord, Lord" doesn't mean they're acceptable to Jesus. Nor does it mean He has anything to do with them...

[MeOnTheBeach]

For example, a person's church may deny the efficacy of infant baptism and turn the Sacrament of Holy Baptism into Law (our obedience) instead of Gospel (God's gift). But in spite of that error, if the Word of God is preached in that church, and people cling to the cross of Christ as their only hope, they will be saved.

This is interesting. When did the Lutheran church take this stance on doctrine?

Because in times past the Lutherans were so intolerable of doctrinal descent, heresy was punishable by death. As I recall from history, tens of thousands of Ana-Baptists were executed by the Lutheran church for simply believing that infant baptism was wrong.

As I recall the Augsburg confession of 1530 condemns the Ana-Baptist to hell. So why the shift? I mean, wouldn't it take an actual revelation from God to change the church's doctrine so radically?

Oh, btw, forgive me for changing the subject, but I enjoy reading your DUmmie FUnnies. :-)

[JCBreckenridge]

List for me which books you believe are authoritative, and the first published bible with these books, and only these books. :)

[MeOnTheBeach]

List for me which books you believe are authoritative, and the first published bible with these books, and only these books. :)

There was never supposed to be an actual Bible. This was a creation of the Catholic church. Scripture was never supposed to be limited to a few books. They should have kept and maintained all the writings which had been passed down until an actual prophet of God told them which writings God wanted us to keep.

There are a couple books in the current KJV that are not scripture. Solomon Song was Solomon's love sonnets to his concubines. Proverbs was written by a king and not a prophet. That sort of thing.

[JCBreckenridge]

“There was never supposed to be an actual Bible.”

Then you don’t consider any Canon to be authoritative?

“Scripture was never supposed to be limited to a few books.”

So, then, which books do you consider authoritative?

“There are a couple books in the current KJV that are not scripture.”

Ok, then you accept the apocrypha because the KJV was originally printed with it. ;)

You also can’t argue, “there never was intended to be a canon”, and then accept a canon that never existed prior to the 16th century, a millenium and a half after they were written.

It seems pretty clear to me that your standard is whatever you want to accept. :) Are you a prophet?

[MeOnTheBeach]

Then you don’t consider any Canon to be authoritative?

I consider individual writings to be authoritative.

Numbers 21:14
14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,

If the Book of the Wars of the Lord were found and if it was found to be legit, I'd consider it scripture.

There are actually 3 letters Paul wrote to Corinth. Who knows, maybe more.

So, then, which books do you consider authoritative?

err well.. there's the Bible (or what we have of it). Minus Solomon Song.

You also can’t argue, “there never was intended to be a canon”, and then accept a canon that never existed prior to the 16th century, a millenium and a half after they were written.

You're creating a false dilemma. All or nothing isn't the only choice here. The total number of the writings doesn't some how make what's contained in them false. Therefore, I can accept the canon that's available and still hold the belief there should be more with out a contradiction.

Unless someone can prove to me that the "Book of wars of the Lord" which the book Numbers refers to is not scripture, I'm going to hold out for it.

It seems pretty clear to me that your standard is whatever you want to accept. :) Are you a prophet?

So, you acknowledge that I'm free to make up my own mind, cool, you are not wrong. Not sure that simply exercising free will constitutes being a prophet though.