Jehovah Wtiness: Original Sin is a false legend.

[jrtrent]

I am however expecting them to accept that my beliefs are what they are and not what they say they are. Until that understanding can happen is the fruitfulness supposed to go only one way?

Yes, I guess I was thinking of just a one-way benefit, here. I do understand the frustration, though, if someone is obstinately refusing to learn and accept what your actual positions are. It was a nice example you gave concerning infant baptism.

One thing I experienced with my talks with Jehovah’s Witnesses was that they did seem open to learning more about my religion (Continuing Anglican), and I was even able to correct some minor misunderstandings they had about Catholics, Lutherans, and a few others. What do you think might be the issue with your family not accepting your beliefs as they really are? It might be Watchtower publications. Have they shown you the little book called Reasoning from the Scriptures? I know it has sections on purgatory, Mary, apostolic succession, and so on. It might be interesting to see how accurate those portrayals are.

 

[schwartzmann]

Organized religion? As opposed to unorganized religion?

Yes!

Religion doesn’t have involve organization, hierarchy, etc. You don’t have to go to churches, meetings, etc… it can be a personal/individual thing, and/or something you share with you family and loved ones.

 

[adf417]

What do you think might be the issue with your family not accepting your beliefs as they really are? It might be Watchtower publications. Have they shown you the little book called Reasoning from the Scriptures?.

It is definitely the Watchtower IMO. As you point out you have corrected some of their minor misunderstandings. The minor ones are not the problem it is the ones the Watchtower has publicized and teaches that is false.

Scenario: Watchtower teaches Catholics worship Mary. While I do not know what all Catholics actually worship I do know what the church teaches and I surly know what I worship and what I don’t. There is nothing to argue here. I do not worship Mary and no one can convince me otherwise. However, while the average open minded person might understand and accept that I do not worship Mary, for a JW to acknowledge this would go against the Watchtower’s direct teachings. You will not/cannot get a JW to admit they understand this and accept it. The moment they do they are apostate.

Have they shown you the little book called Reasoning from the Scriptures? I know it has sections on purgatory, Mary, apostolic succession, and so on. It might be interesting to see how accurate those portrayals are.

I have not seen this book but what good can come out of a publication from an organization that does not understand the Catholic teachings on these subjects? Have I not proven above that no matter the evidence, the Watchtower MUST always be right? This is the reason they have their own translation. How else can you begin to remove the divenity of Jesus?

Peace!!!

 

[Nicea325]

I thought you did, when you wrote, “Teaching bogus beliefs about Christ and historical Christianity is not fruitful, but outright deceiving.”

“Bogus” means fake, phony, pretended, sham
“Deceive” means mislead, be dishonest, hoax, hoodwink, play joke on

Your use of those words led me to conclude, “You make it sound like Jehovah’s Witnesses are not sincere in their beliefs, that they are deliberately perpetrating a fraud.” My apologies if I misunderstood you, but it was an honest mistake.

Well, you probably know a lot more about their doctrine than I do, then. Your original post, however, made it seem you were unaware that the Jehovah’s Witnesses actually do have a doctrine of original sin, which is why I thought your exposure to their doctrine was limited. Instead it appears you simply like to “corner them,” and enjoy their dumbfounded expressions when they can’t answer a question you’ve posed.

I admit that their teachings have serious flaws. I discussed some of them during my studies with them last year, using some of the “stumpers” that can be found in The Essential Catholic Survival Guide as they came up in our talks. But they also seem to have a well-reasoned, well-researched Biblical basis for their beliefs, and they had answers they found acceptable for any item I brought up. Of course, so do Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. Though their theology is less orthodox than most, I find Jehovah’s Witnesses to be no different than any other religious body that claims to base all their teachings on the Bible–each interprets scripture from its own exegetical tradition, and shakes their collective heads sadly at others who can’t seem to see the plain truth the Bible teaches.

Well of course they seem to have a well-reasoned, well research Biblical basis for their beliefs and so do they Branch Davidians,Jim Jones,Mormons,etc,etc. Does it mean they are correct?

 

[jrtrent]

Well of course they seem to have a well-reasoned, well research Biblical basis for their beliefs and so do they Branch Davidians,Jim Jones,Mormons,etc,etc. Does it mean they are correct?

Actually, I was thinking that Branch Davidians and Mormons would fall into a different category, along with Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Methodists, because these groups don’t go to the Bible alone for their doctrine, but have other writings, councils, prophets, etc., that also shape their doctrine and practice. However, the more I think about it, the less it probably matters. The exegetical presuppositions that the presumably “sola scriptura” bodies carry with them also seem to serve as an extra-Biblical authority.

I’m just musing on what would constitute an appropriate purpose and method in entering into dialogue with people of other faiths, particularly, given the theme of this thread, with Jehovah’s Witnesses. George Stegmeir and adf417 seem to have reached a point of concluding that it’s a waste of time. You and FightingFat at least see some entertainment value to be had. Holly3278 sees them as good people who have found their way into a false, non-Christian faith, and seems to hold out hope that debate and a refutation of their doctrine is possible. I don’t have any answers, but for the present, I just enjoy the Jehovah’s Witnesses I know, respecting them as dedicated to their faith and honest in their work and business habits. When opportunity arises for Bible discussion, and one of their rather distinctive points of doctrine comes up, I simply say, “Oh, that’s interesting,” then offer what I consider a more orthodox perspective on the issue. I try to keep it informational rather than confrontative; that there can be a rational argument and Biblical support for ideas other than their own sometimes comes as a surprise to people, especially if they’ve lived in one faith all their lives.

 

[Nicea325]

Actually, I was thinking that Branch Davidians and Mormons would fall into a different category, along with Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Methodists, because these groups don’t go to the Bible alone for their doctrine, but have other writings, councils, prophets, etc., that also shape their doctrine and practice. However, the more I think about it, the less it probably matters. The exegetical presuppositions that the presumably “sola scriptura” bodies carry with them also seem to serve as an extra-Biblical authority.

I’m just musing on what would constitute an appropriate purpose and method in entering into dialogue with people of other faiths, particularly, given the theme of this thread, with Jehovah’s Witnesses. George Stegmeir and adf417 seem to have reached a point of concluding that it’s a waste of time. You and FightingFat at least see some entertainment value to be had. Holly3278 sees them as good people who have found their way into a false, non-Christian faith, and seems to hold out hope that debate and a refutation of their doctrine is possible. I don’t have any answers, but for the present, I just enjoy the Jehovah’s Witnesses I know, respecting them as dedicated to their faith and honest in their work and business habits. When opportunity arises for Bible discussion, and one of their rather distinctive points of doctrine comes up, I simply say, “Oh, that’s interesting,” then offer what I consider a more orthodox perspective on the issue. I try to keep it informational rather than confrontative; that there can be a rational argument and Biblical support for ideas other than their own sometimes comes as a surprise to people, especially if they’ve lived in one faith all their lives.

Do not get me wrong, I am not rude to them or put them down. I simply point out the wholes in their theology. Remember salvation is the key here.