Question for the next JW who may be dropping by

[friardchips]

Friardchips. Methinks I’ve showed evidence that St. Augustine wouldn’t shut the door on the JW’s. He engaged all kinds of “cults” of his day even after a decade or more of time, none of the least of which was the Mani followers, and he even admits that he shouldn’t have. I haven’t seen any evidence from you regarding this Saint that says otherwise.

Hi. I already explained that this was before he was converted. Afterwards, he followed the rules of prudence. And looking back, he said ought not to have done what he did. Later, when Bishop, or under authority from the Bishop, he eventually decided, after proper discernment, that he had to. On behalf of the Church.

Hmm. This is quite a generalization. Would you destroy the entire city if there were just 10 people open to reason?

My point is that JWs are not open to reason.

I happen to disagree. I don’t see the evidence that he would shut the door. Quite the opposite.

You have been arguing around my points.

Perhaps our thinking is this.

Me: invite them in, dialogue, drop seeds, show Catholic love and charity, by all means feed them as many home-made chocolate chip cookies as possible, don’t expect conversion on the spot. (this is egg-exactly what those ex-JW’s turned Catholic’s are saying that I referenced)

This would be not loving yourself appropriately as you are so supposed to love your neighbour because this would be testing the spirit. IMO.

You: shut the door.

Education is for betterment.

I have no doubt, St. Augustine was ascribe to the former, not the latter.

The you’d be incorrect in my evaluation.

 

[friardchips]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia. Some interesting parallels between the JW’s and Mani’s followers:

Once this is known there is little else to learn. In this sense Mani was a true Gnostic, as he brought salvation by knowledge. Manichæism professed to be a religion of pure reason as opposed to Christian credulity; it professed to explain the origin, the composition, and the future of the universe; it had an answer for everything and despised Christianity

This is nothing like JWs. They don’t reason.

Similar to the JW’s, Mani’s followers rejected the divinity of Christ. Mani proclaimed himself the Paraclete promised by Jesus (the JW’s proclaim their leaders to be prophets)

…rejected the whole of the Old Testament, but admitted as much of the New as suited him; in particular he rejected the Acts of the Apostles, because it told of the descent of the Holy Ghost in the past. The gospels were corrupted in many places, but where a text seemed to favor him the Manichee knew how to parade it. One has to read St. Augustine’s anti-Manichæan disputes to realize the extreme ingenuity with which scripture texts were collected and interpreted.

Though Mani called himself the Paraclete he claimed no divinity but with show of humility styled himself “Apostle of Jesus Christ by the providence of God the Father”; a designation which is obviously adapted from the heading of the Pauline Epistles. Mani, however, was the Apostle of Jesus Christ, i.e. the messenger of Christ’s promise, that Paraclete whom he sent (apostolos from apostellos, to send) Mani’s blasphemous assumption was thus toned down a little to Christian ears.

Jesus Christ was to Mani but an aeon or persistent personification of Light in the world.; as far as it had already been set free it was the luminous Jesus, or Jesus patibilis.

The historical Jesus of Nazareth was entirely repudiated by Mani. “The son of a poor widow” (Mary),“the Jewish Messias whom the Jews crucified”, “a devil who was justly punished for interfering in the work of the Aeon Jesus”, such was, according to Mani, the Christ whom Christians worshipped as God. Mani’s Christology was purely Docetic, his Christ appeared to be man, to live, suffer, and die to symbolize the light suffering in this world. Though Mani used the term “Evangel” for his message, his Evangel was clearly in no real sense that of the Christians.

Mani finally beguiled the unwary by the use of such apparently Christian terms as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to designate divine personalities, but a glance at his cosmogony shows how flimsy was the disguise. Nevertheless, spoke so cautiously, urging only faith in god, His light, His power, and His wisdom (in reality" the Father of Majesty"; the sun and moon; the five blessed aeons, his sons, and the Manichæan religion), that they deceived many.

Despite all this, their twisting of scripture and despising of Chrsitianity, St. Augustine engaged them.

Before his conversion. Only after, did he do this was consideration, at an appropriate time.

From ‘Confessions’ -

p.295 (18) - I listen to all these arguments and give them thought, but I will not engage in worldly disputes, such as can unsettle the minds of those who are listening.’

p.300 (23) - 'As for the first sort of disagreement, I wish to have no dealing with any who think things which in reality are false; and as for the second, I wish to have none with any who think that Moses wrote what was not true.’…

To do with ‘charity’ - ‘But I pray that in you, O Lord, I may dwell in harmony and joy with those who feed upon your truth in the fullness of charity.’

i.e: those who do not oppose sacred Scripture.

p.303 (26) - ‘Do you not see how foolish it is to enter into mischievous arguments which are an offense against that very charity for the sake of which he wrote every one of the words that we are trying to explain.’

While he is talking about those who speak against Moses, we can also apply this good sense to mean in regards to anyone opposed to any Scripture in a manner of denial/perversion.

 

[PRmerger]

This is nothing like JWs. They don’t reason.

I agree.

But I think it’s worth the effort to plant seeds.

It’s helpful to ask the ex-Catholics what their understanding was of Catholic Doctrine A.
And, of course, their explication of Catholic Doctrine A will be wrong, so you can correct them.

Seed planted.

 

[friardchips]

I agree.

But I think it’s worth the effort to plant seeds.

It’s helpful to ask the ex-Catholics what their understanding was of Catholic Doctrine A.
And, of course, their explication of Catholic Doctrine A will be wrong, so you can correct them.

Seed planted.

Hi. I agree that planting seeds is necessary. A duty, even. And I think to all people. EXCEPT for aggressive cults. They just need prayers said for them. IMHO.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi. I agree that planting seeds is necessary. A duty, even. And I think to all people. EXCEPT for aggressive cults. They just need prayers said for them. IMHO.

2 people at your door do not constitute an aggressive cult.

See them as individuals who are being deceived by the JW religion.

If you were at one of their meetings at the Kingdom Hall, then that might constitute being in the presence of an aggressive cult.

 

[friardchips]

2 people at your door do not constitute an aggressive cult.

See them as individuals who are being deceived by the JW religion.

If you were at one of their meetings at the Kingdom Hall, then that might constitute being in the presence of an aggressive cult.

Hi. Still disagree. The very fact that they are knocking on people’s doors, making it hard for them to say no at the door, and pushing literature on them, is aggressive. And the fact that they learn to block out reason and that there is something demonic attached to their cult means they are dangerous with it. I am fairly certain that they use hypnotic or at least some kind of ‘summoning’ means.

If you wish to advocate what you are advocating then what can I say but I strongly advise against it. And going by what I have cited, so would the saints.

God bless.

 

[friardchips]

…unless one has discerned that one is under a command of obedience to do so i.e:- a Bishop or someone in legitimate position of authority on behalf of the Church so tasked with the job.

 

[Porknpie]

Hi. Still disagree. The very fact that they are knocking on people’s doors, making it hard for them to say no at the door, and pushing literature on them, is aggressive.

I haven’t seen the Witnesses being aggressive at all. The last three times I’ve encountered them has been when they were set up at a park bench, at a table insides a travel Oasis, and when a very soft spoken man greeted me while cutting the grass. No one tossed literature at me. And the park bench encounter led to a mid-60 year old married couple visiting our house one evening for nearly 3 hours, dessert included. The wife even said “that’s a good question” as to how the Church could have fallen into error around 100 ad, yet infallibly discern the canon of the NT some 300 years later. That’s evidence of …

Reason.

Nothing demonic about them. No horns and neither of them were able to walk up a wall backwards. Just a very nice couple, who have been led astray.

They got a little lesson in bible history, they now understand a bit about the Eucharist and they know now that Catholic’s don’t worship Mary.

there is something demonic attached to their cult

Me thinks you are dehumanizing them.

And I continue to see no evidence that the saints, particularly Augustine would have shut the door.

I’ve already cited ex-Witnesses turned Catholics who consistently say “let them in”, cheesecake included.

 

[friardchips]

The last three times I’ve encountered them has been when they were set up at a park bench, at a table insides a travel Oasis, and when a very soft spoken man greeted me while cutting the grass.

I’d already spoken of these kinds of unexpected circumstances:

While it might be advised to drop some seed if one doesn’t purposefully enter such an environment does not equal purposefully going into such an environment to convert.

However…proselytizing is still what it is.

And I continue to see no evidence that the saints, particularly Augustine would have shut the door.

If you have had understood the reasoning that took place in the dialogue between us, with the use of citations from the book, then your opinion would be different now because, my reasoning was thorough and exacting, regarding St. Augustine in the context of our discussion, which is exactly what St. Augustine was, when he wrote what he wrote.

Nothing demonic about them. No horns…

I was talking about devilry of the spiritual kind - the real kind - and not the make-believe stuff where people dress up for Halloween and go trick-or-treating.

Me thinks you are dehumanizing them.

Actually, this is rather a twisted statement. This cult/sect dehumanize by using underhand techniques to proselytize - which the Catholic Church deems it wrong to do because it is lacking in ‘charity’ - and we dehumanize ourselves by allowing them to voice blasphemy i.e:- the Catholic Church came first.

Faith-filled reasoning is used in order to take a subject out of the perimeter of subjective analysis only whereby one can then look at something as either true or false. We can’t continue in dialogue because, as stated, you read around the arguments, instead of addressing them.

I believe that I have proven my point and so can see no reason to have to continue.

Thanks for the dialogue and responses of a sort, to my posts.

 

[Porknpie]

We can’t continue in dialogue because, as stated, you read around the arguments, instead of addressing them. .

Perhaps not. I have addressed your arguments, citing a more complete view of St. Augustine as a model for evangelization. The demonic charge is without basis, and one that I haven’t heard before regarding them.

I cited ex Jehovah Witnesses, now Catholics, who say “let them in” and encourage us to not shut the door.

Can you cite any ex JW, now Catholic’s, who says “shut the door” ?

I’m open to this as a possibility but I need evidence.

Our showing love and charity can at times,can do more than arguing doctrinal points. This point is made by those ex JW’s, now Catholics. They have a warped view of Catholic’s, Catholicism, and our engaging them, showing them the love of Christ can with the help of the Holy Spirit, can inform, challenge and changing their views, softening their hearts.

(similarly, their are many a protestant who are quite adamant that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, the Pope the anti-Christ etc. They too can be very closed to reason … should one be consistent and shut the door on them too by not evangelizing them? What is the criteria for who we should and should not evangelize and where does the Church teach this?)

 

[Porknpie]

Thanks for the dialogue and responses of a sort, to my posts.

Friardchips -

I see this too from my favorite Jesuit.

He comments

• a Catholic has three choices: Accept the truth of the Watchtower’s statements and join the Jehovah’s Witnesses, remain unconvinced but confused by not knowing how to answer them, or refute the claims and demonstrate the truth of the Catholic faith. *

Our letting them in allows us to refute the claims and demonstrate the truth of the Catholic faith.

 

[friardchips]

Friardchips -

I see this too from my favorite Jesuit.

He comments

• a Catholic has three choices: Accept the truth of the Watchtower’s statements and join the Jehovah’s Witnesses, remain unconvinced but confused by not knowing how to answer them, or refute the claims and demonstrate the truth of the Catholic faith. *

Our letting them in allows us to refute the claims and demonstrate the truth of the Catholic faith.

Hi. I have enjoyed our back-n-forth but I really don’t think we are going to agree over this.

Three reasons I could not follow this Jesuit’s advice:

1. I am not a fan of this Order in more recent years.
2. Religious members are trained, are probably under obedience to defend the faith in certain situations, and can take anything that happens as a nudge from God; that said…
3. I think he is wrong.

 

[Porknpie]

. Religious members are trained, are probably under obedience to defend the faith in certain situations.

Not just the ordained. We’re ALL called to defend the faith, to offer an apologia. We’re all called to be Missionary Disciples.
Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence

 

[PRmerger]

Not just the ordained. We’re ALL called to defend the faith, to offer an apologia. We’re all called to be Missionary Disciples.
Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence

:yup:

 

[friardchips]

Not just the ordained. We’re ALL called to defend the faith, to offer an apologia. We’re all called to be Missionary Disciples.
Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence

First, to counter this line from his that you’ve taken out of context, St. Peter is referring to people who ask about our faith. Asking about the hope we have.

This is clearly different to JWs coming to the door attempting to enforce a blasphemous belief of their own. They are not interested in the hope within us; they come to the door, to proselytize.

Now look to the text here:

*'Acts 8:9-24 -

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”*

20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”’

When St. Peter was confronted by the Sorcerer, he did not use flowery language. He was as direct as one could be, in telling someone they were wrong and in need of repenting. Is that what you are suggesting? Because St. Peter was tasked with the job of first Pope, and so he had the authority to speak in this way. And this sorcerer did not come to his house. If he had come to his house, I dare say that St. Peter would have said the same thing.

Here again, with St. Paul:

*'Paul and Silas in Prison

16Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a female slave who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. 17She followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” 18She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.’*

This ties in with post #20, concerning how I thought St. Augustine, after his conversion, would respond:

…and this would have been out of charity. One does not Tempt the Spirit. Or put oneself in near occasion of sin. If JWs came to his door, he would have said his piece, and left it. Noticing the signs of people who have been brain-washed. Either that, or he would have sought to giving them some kind of spiritual blessing to vanquish demons.

Furthermore:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

‘2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future.48 Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.’

In another part of Scripture, St. Paul tell us to be genuine. When people are joyful, to be joyful and when they are sad, to be sad. What St. Paul does not tell us, is when people aggressively proselytize at the door, to welcome their blasphemy and argumentative avoidance tactics, and manipulative techniques with open arms.

 

[Porknpie]

‘2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future.48 Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.’

I have yet to meet a JW who practiced any form of divination. And if they did, I would open the door, all the more.

Coincidentally I was reading St. Irenaeus today one of the Church’s earliest Missionary Disciples (IMHO). Below he speaks of the Gnostic’s, the JW’s of his day, who he was debating and who he said consented to neither scripture nor tradition (they twisted the Christian scripture).

3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it. (Book 3, Ch 2)

To evangelize we must open the door and offer a defense of the faith.

For it’s possible, not impossible, that conversion may occur.

Eventually, in this way, Gnosticism was defeated.

With us acting to plant seeds,and with the Holy Spirit’s help, the Witnesses can have the same happy ending.

 

[friardchips]

I have yet to meet a JW who practiced any form of divination. And if they did, I would open the door, all the more.

Coincidentally I was reading St. Irenaeus today one of the Church’s earliest Missionary Disciples (IMHO). Below he speaks of the Gnostic’s, the JW’s of his day, who he was debating and who he said consented to neither scripture nor tradition (they twisted the Christian scripture).

3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it. (Book 3, Ch 2)

To evangelize we must open the door and offer a defense of the faith.

For it’s possible, not impossible, that conversion may occur.

Eventually, in this way, Gnosticism was defeated.

With us acting to plant seeds,and with the Holy Spirit’s help, the Witnesses can have the same happy ending.

:ehh:

Different cult altogether. Different context. Different people speaking to different people.

We are not going to agree. So now, different thread…

:takeoff:

 

[Porknpie]

This is clearly different to JWs coming to the door attempting to enforce a blasphemous belief of their own. They are not interested in the hope within us; they come to the door, to proselytize.

You don’t believe that in inviting them in, sharing the truth of the Gospel, that we can plant seeds? You don’t believe that St Peter would do so? Nor St. Paul, neither would our current Pope? I believe they ALL certainly would.

I personally can attest that I have, and believe that I have done so.

I don’t say this in a heady way.

Have you read Ad Gentes?

1. Since the whole Church is missionary, and the work of evangelization is a basic duty of the People of God, this sacred synod invites all to a deep interior renewal; so that, having a vivid awareness of their own responsibility for spreading the Gospel, they may do their share in missionary work among the nations.
2. As members of the living Christ, incorporated into Him and made like unto Him through baptism and through confirmation and the Eucharist, all the faithful are duty-bound to cooperate in the expansion and spreading out of His Body, to bring it to fullness as soon as may be (Eph. 4:13).

No where in the document does it state that we can be missionary by shutting the door. Our responsibility to is to open it and dialogue.

I’ve found that a cute dog that does a lot of tricks and homemade cookies can be great ice breakers. If not cookies, then a

I focus on dropping seeds, showing much charity along the way.

I’ll trust the Holy Spirit to do the rest.

 

[Porknpie]

:ehh:

Different cult altogether. Different context. Different people speaking to different people.

We are not going to agree. So now, different thread…

:takeoff:

The Catholic response though Friardchips is the same: dialogue, be missionary, open the door, show charity.

We are not going to agree.

I believe you are correct.

 

[adf417]

:ehh:

Different cult altogether. Different context. Different people speaking to different people.

We are not going to agree. So now, different thread…

:takeoff:

Greetings friardchips, may I ask from another prespective?

If your 14 year old daughter came home asking you questions which some JW put into her mind concerning her faith you surly would address them, correct? And when this daughter is 17 you probably would continue addressing these questions, correct? At 20 she states she is ready to join the JW organization, you would continue imploring her to reconsider, correct? At what point do you stop trying to address her misguided understandings? Is it at the point she is baptised a JW? What power does their baptism have that changes the situation? Seriously, at what point would you decide there is no use in continuing? How do you know when this point is that reasoning is lost?

Peace!!!