Roundup of a discussion with a Jehovah's Witness

[yellowbird]

The call your no man “Father” is so silly. Don’t JWs have a mother and a father? Grandfather?

Founding fathers of our Country?

Father Abraham?

Father of Invention?

Do they honestly believe Jesus would take issue with those?

 

[sedonaman]

…Venerated means worship. …

That’s a 400-year-old definition/origin. Today, it means

— vb

1. to hold in deep respect; revere
2. to honour in recognition of qualities of holiness, excellence, wisdom, etc

World English Dictionary dictionary.reference.com/browse/Venerate?s=t

 

[Ruthie_again]

Copied and pasted:
I had surgery on my left hand on Oct. 11th, which means I must hunt and peck with my right hand. That is so slow that I plan to desert my usual grammar and spelling for the next few days, until I can use my left hand a little. Thank you all for your patience!

call no man father… ask them why this only applies to priests. do they show a family picture to someone and say, ‘that’s my mother, and my aunt, and my grandma, and my sperm donor and my grand sperm donor’?

see mk 10.18 for another example of Jesus using hyperbole. Not to mention

If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
Matt 5:29-30 (RSV)

more important, don’t let yourself go down any side trails. be nice. if it’s you sidetracking, say ‘sorry, back to the point.’ if it’s the jw, say, ‘let’s talk about that later’ and go back to the subject.

it is not unusual for someone who ‘knows’ something and hears an argument that shakes that knowledge, to change the subject and/or make a new attack. i don’t think it’s deliberate - but it’s a really good reason to go back to the subject! you’ll give them something to think about.

with jws, if your ‘pioneer’ takes your reasoning back yo their study, they may come back with someone who argues better. be prepared.

apologies to jws; i normally use full title, as i think ‘jw’ is disrespectful.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

The only thing I can think of is that it would be almost impossible for a family to own a bible - remember it would take many scribes many years to prepare,copy, illuminate, and bind a bible. If a family did have a bible, you could almost assume it was stolen from a church. Sort of like if a modern family had an functional aircraft carrier - you could safely assume that something fishy was going on.

Even if someone were to murder someone by burning them - almost nobody would burn the Bible. It would be too valuable.

Re: Ben’s comment

Before Gutenberg:

Sheepskins necessary for 1 Bible = what? 100’s
Time to pen one = a couple scribes, usually monks to dedicate couple or more years of their lives to create 1 Bible = one expensive book folks; $1000’s of dollars in our money; Impossible to purchase by ALL but the wealthy.

Common Folk to read Bible? GOOD LUCK! Education required but didn’t exist for them! For them to be kept simple & ignorant (serfdom) was advantageous to those governing over them.

That is why:
Beautiful STAINED GLASS created by artisans so common people could SEE the GOSPEL
Hear Music in the Liturgy - common people learned to SING the GOSPEL. They would for example: take a bar song everyone knew and turn it into a magnificent HYMN.
Recite a Rosary where they could PRAY the GOSPEL. Rosary is centuries old
Honor God with incense. Smell the Incense rising up to Heaven; done for centuries

Transports one to a beautiful place that nourished them, away from the struggle of their everyday lives. They used THEIR SENSES to LEARN & PRAY the GOSPEL, not by READING which they could not accomplish anyway!

IF local Parish COULD AFFORD a Bible, had to SECURE it as was PRICELESS to them. It took centuries to get the masses educated; starting with small monasteries that sprung up around Europe eventually turning into the great European centers of commerce = cities. The monks were the priests, teachers, doctors, nurses, farmers, agronomists, you name it for CENTURIES.

NO ONE ELSE WAS THERE FOR THEM! Where were the sects… Apparently, no where. Sects very late arrival on the salvation scene conveniently leave out pertinent details do they not & loathe to admit historical facts so as to justify their man-made version of history, their existence so as to continue to perpetrate false notions to uninformed adherents as have done from their man-made inception.

An expensive, difficult to obtain Bible did NOT need to be in the hands of every person (who couldn’t read it anyway) in order to hear about the Gospel. The Church spread like wildfire for centuries circling the globe entrenching itself *long *before Gutenberg.

 

[sedonaman]

… call no man father…

Bringing this point up is a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, the literal word of God, which presents problems right away for the fundamentalist. The classical example: on the first day, God said, “Let there be light!” If the sun, moon, and stars were not created until a subsequent day, where did the light come from on the first day? What about “Honor thy father and mother”? Who is this “father” I’m supposed to honor if I “call no man father”? If it is God, who is my “mother”?

 

[CutlerB]

Copied and pasted:
I had surgery on my left hand on Oct. 11th, which means I must hunt and peck with my right hand. That is so slow that I plan to desert my usual grammar and spelling for the next few days, until I can use my left hand a little. Thank you all for your patience!

call no man father… ask them why this only applies to priests. do they show a family picture to someone and say, ‘that’s my mother, and my aunt, and my grandma, and my sperm donor and my grand sperm donor’?

see mk 10.18 for another example of Jesus using hyperbole. Not to mention

more important, don’t let yourself go down any side trails. be nice. if it’s you sidetracking, say ‘sorry, back to the point.’ if it’s the jw, say, ‘let’s talk about that later’ and go back to the subject.

it is not unusual for someone who ‘knows’ something and hears an argument that shakes that knowledge, to change the subject and/or make a new attack. i don’t think it’s deliberate - but it’s a really good reason to go back to the subject! you’ll give them something to think about.

with jws, if your ‘pioneer’ takes your reasoning back yo their study, they may come back with someone who argues better. be prepared.

apologies to jws; i normally use full title, as i think ‘jw’ is disrespectful.

I would agree. However, they’d go to say: Well, it says God is our Father. Obviously He is not our physical Father, so Jesus’ saying would not apply to physical but spiritual “fathers”. And that would mean only God is that. Again, I expect that to be their counter.

Well, I tried to stay on topic, but she just went “Throw as much in as possible and make many absurd claims which just have to be answered”. However, I got her so far as to not be able to show me Jesus was created. I showed her that it is absolutely contradictory scripturally and logically. (John 1:1-3, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14) Her only response was: “One would have to know Greek to answer that.” Actually, one wouldn’t, but only think.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

The call your no man “Father” is so silly. Don’t JWs have a mother and a father? Grandfather?

Founding fathers of our Country?

Father Abraham?

Father of Invention?

Do they honestly believe Jesus would take issue with those?

It would be more beneficial to provide an explanation than show that we might be wrong for doing those things as well.
I am not saying it is wrong to call a priest father I am saying things should always be questioned. Your response is inadequate.
After all God created all things including nations, Abraham, and invention.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Bringing this point up is a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, the literal word of God, which presents problems right away for the fundamentalist. The classical example: on the first day, God said, “Let there be light!” If the sun, moon, and stars were not created until a subsequent day, where did the light come from on the first day? What about “Honor thy father and mother”? Who is this “father” I’m supposed to honor if I “call no man father”? If it is God, who is my “mother”?

The bible is literal. Catholics do agree. There is more than one way to explain that and you know it. For instance, God can make light possible without the sun. He “could potentially” be referring to his light (which is not physical light in that use of it).

Your mother could logically be the Blessed Mother if you live through Christ. You would not have eternal life if there was no Blessed Mother (according to the reality that we are in).

I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying you must provide an explanation for why he said it.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Copied and pasted:
I had surgery on my left hand on Oct. 11th, which means I must hunt and peck with my right hand. That is so slow that I plan to desert my usual grammar and spelling for the next few days, until I can use my left hand a little. Thank you all for your patience!

call no man father… ask them why this only applies to priests. do they show a family picture to someone and say, ‘that’s my mother, and my aunt, and my grandma, and my sperm donor and my grand sperm donor’?

see mk 10.18 for another example of Jesus using hyperbole. Not to mention

more important, don’t let yourself go down any side trails. be nice. if it’s you sidetracking, say ‘sorry, back to the point.’ if it’s the jw, say, ‘let’s talk about that later’ and go back to the subject.

it is not unusual for someone who ‘knows’ something and hears an argument that shakes that knowledge, to change the subject and/or make a new attack. i don’t think it’s deliberate - but it’s a really good reason to go back to the subject! you’ll give them something to think about.

with jws, if your ‘pioneer’ takes your reasoning back yo their study, they may come back with someone who argues better. be prepared.

apologies to jws; i normally use full title, as i think ‘jw’ is disrespectful.

Your explanation is also inadequate. I am not saying it is wrong, once again, I am saying it is not going to persuade anyone.

You provided reasons why we should use a different word when referring to our earthly family members. There is more than one way to do that.
“dad, grandad” for example.

My intention is to provoke thought, not to say it is wrong to call a priest father. I don’t have an adequate answer yet so I am trying to find one.

So far, there are none.

EDIT: None in this thread!

 

[zz912]

1. Priests should not be called Father. The Pope is called Holy Father.

She should read her Bible again. St. Paul calls himself the spiritual father of Timothy I believe. So either the Bible contradicts itself, or she doesn’t understand the verse or context of it. (I’m going with the latter.)

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Re: Ben’s comment

Before Gutenberg:

Sheepskins necessary for 1 Bible = what? 100’s
Time to pen one = a couple scribes, usually monks to dedicate couple or more years of their lives to create 1 Bible = one expensive book folks; $1000’s of dollars in our money; Impossible to purchase by ALL but the wealthy.

Common Folk to read Bible? GOOD LUCK! Education required but didn’t exist for them! For them to be kept simple & ignorant (serfdom) was advantageous to those governing over them.

That is why:
Beautiful STAINED GLASS created by artisans so common people could SEE the GOSPEL
Hear Music in the Liturgy - common people learned to SING the GOSPEL. They would for example: take a bar song everyone knew and turn it into a magnificent HYMN.
Recite a Rosary where they could PRAY the GOSPEL. Rosary is centuries old
Honor God with incense. Smell the Incense rising up to Heaven; done for centuries

Transports one to a beautiful place that nourished them, away from the struggle of their everyday lives. They used THEIR SENSES to LEARN & PRAY the GOSPEL, not by READING which they could not accomplish anyway!

IF local Parish COULD AFFORD a Bible, had to SECURE it as was PRICELESS to them. It took centuries to get the masses educated; starting with small monasteries that sprung up around Europe eventually turning into the great European centers of commerce = cities. The monks were the priests, teachers, doctors, nurses, farmers, agronomists, you name it for CENTURIES.

NO ONE ELSE WAS THERE FOR THEM! Where were the sects… Apparently, no where. Sects very late arrival on the salvation scene conveniently leave out pertinent details do they not & loathe to admit historical facts so as to justify their man-made version of history, their existence so as to continue to perpetrate false notions to uninformed adherents as have done from their man-made inception.

An expensive, difficult to obtain Bible did NOT need to be in the hands of every person (who couldn’t read it anyway) in order to hear about the Gospel. The Church spread like wildfire for centuries circling the globe entrenching itself *long *before Gutenberg.

That is a very good post & Dont forget although the Church condemd Tyndales translation as being sectrarian especialy in the accompnying notes it was acctualy Henry the viii who made him an outlaw in his own country and condemed him to death not the Church.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

One thing which constantly annoys me about my dealings with Jehovahs Wittnesses is thier constant use of provocative language. e.g. They will say something like " Jehovahs Witnesses don’t compromise when it comes to the teachings of the bible". Now any one who has had any dealings with Jehovahs Wittnesses knows that this isn’t true, however the provocative part of the statement is that it implies that all others except thier group do compromise when it comes to the teachings of the bible.
This provocation can be seen in thier writtings from the very start of the movement and no doubt is a tactic to produce animosity or annoyance in thier audiance which in turn supports thier line of reasoning which goes " see we are the real Christians because we are being persicuted for our beliefs". When in fact they are not being persicuted for thier beleifs, they are being persicuted because when explaining thier beleifs they have been trained to do it in a way which provocs and subtely insults the beleifs held by thier audiance.
When dealing with Jehovah Witnesses I have found that this is the first and biggest obstical that one must come to terms with, i.e wether they are aware that they are doing it or not when trying to present thier beliefs to you they are constantly, subtely insulting you and your beliefs at the same time.
Very very frustrating and annoying

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Christians fighting Christians. Hmmmm

Commandment says “Thou shalt not kill” as in MURDER, but it is just to kill in self-defense.

Husband MUST protect wife if some criminal accosts her on the street; if husband smacks him, he hits the curb, falls & breaks neck & dies from result, bad for him but husband is correct, right! If no attempts of protection towards wife, no defense offered on her behalf, then one is immoral, passive.

Jesus is the Bridegroom, the Church - WE are the Bride. He died for his Bride to SAVE HER, to save US!!! Christ shed his BLOOD for his BRIDE.

Take that up to the level of a country. We MUST defend against unjust aggressors. Jesus never told soldiers to be pacifists! He said WE MIGHT EVEN BE CALLED TO SHED OUR OWN BLOOD FOR THE TRUTH! We MUST defend against EVIL & Nazis were that.

JW sometimes have a bizarre interpretation of scripture. No excuse concerning Bible; the largest Jewish community in the world outside Israel is probably New York City, Brooklyn, HQ of the WTBTS, not to mention huge Catholic population & scholars in NYC; they could clean up errors in their version of Bible easily by consulting with their next door neighbors in Brooklyn throughout the years who know Bible very well! But that would tube justification for their existence, their ensuing power grab and piece of religious pie.

Also in the gospel of Luke when they are leaving for the garden of gesthemany Jesus say’s to his disciples that previosly he sent them out with nothing but now if you have money, bring it, if you have a coat, sell it and buy a sword. (Lk 22:36). This message of Jesus here does have a caviate attached in Mt 26: 52 were Jesus says that all who live by the sword will die by the sword. to me these two passages are proving your point as Christians we should never be the unjust aggressor but we do have a right to defend ourselves against those who have in the past and will continue to try and impose unjust and immoral regimes upon us such as Hitler.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Also in the gospel of Luke when they are leaving for the garden of gesthemany Jesus say’s to his disciples that previosly he sent them out with nothing but now if you have money, bring it, if you have a coat, sell it and buy a sword. (Lk 22:36). This message of Jesus here does have a caviate attached in Mt 26: 52 were Jesus says that all who live by the sword will die by the sword. to me these two passages are proving your point as Christians we should never be the unjust aggressor but we do have a right to defend ourselves against those who have in the past and will continue to try and impose unjust and immoral regimes upon us such as Hitler.

That is exactly how I took it. Also, when he said he who lives by the sword will surely die by it the context was when a disciple cut a pharisees slaves ear off. He told him to put his sword back in it’s place. If he didn’t want him carrying a sword, I think he would have been more specific about it.

It doesn’t mean to allow an unjust threat to your life take it from you, in my opinion.

“He who saves his life will lose it. He who loses his life for my sake will save it.”

This is 1 thing I have trouble with. If I am wrong in my interpretation, this could potentially make even self-defense wrong.

There is more than one way to interpret what it means though, too.

 

[sedonaman]

The bible is literal. Catholics do agree. There is more than one way to explain that and you know it. For instance, God can make light possible without the sun. He “could potentially” be referring to his light (which is not physical light in that use of it). …

But then that wouldn’t be a literal interpretation.

Your mother could logically be the Blessed Mother if you live through Christ. You would not have eternal life if there was no Blessed Mother (according to the reality that we are in). …

This wouldn’t be a literal interpretation, either. I have studied three foreign languages, and one of my teachers [a Korean] said his biggest complaint about English is, “You look up a word in the dictionary, and you find many different meanings.” I think that is what we have in the case of the Bible, and it doesn’t take a theologian to figure that out.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

But then that wouldn’t be a literal interpretation.

This wouldn’t be a literal interpretation, either. I have studied three foreign languages, and one of my teachers [a Korean] said his biggest complaint about English is, “You look up a word in the dictionary, and you find many different meanings.” I think that is what we have in the case of the Bible, and it doesn’t take a theologian to figure that out.

I have noticed that problem too.

 

[Razanir]

The bible is literal. Catholics do agree. There is more than one way to explain that and you know it. For instance, God can make light possible without the sun. He “could potentially” be referring to his light (which is not physical light in that use of it).

I direct you to my sig. One of my favorite two comebacks for anyone who says religion and science don’t fit together is that the big bang theory was created by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.

IIRC, the earliest Catholics say the Bible is completely literal is Adam and Eve, which I think fits quite nicely with evolution. With evolution, there’s probably a first 1 or 2 individuals of a new species, so why couldn’t their names have been Adam and Eve? It also explains quite nicely why humans are the only animals you see wearing clothes (disregarding purse dogs ).

Back on the topic of JWs, why do they use the same books of the Bible as all other Protestants (I assume)? If they believe the Catholic Church (who assembled the Bible) is apostate, wouldn’t they also disregard our opinion on what is and isn’t in the Bible?

 

[CutlerB]

Can anybody respond to the verses given?

 

[adf417]

Can anybody respond to the verses given?

In my opinion this is a classic JW two step. You have allowed a JW to decide which words should be colored blue and which should be red. I suggest you re-read the OP with different coloring (Christian coloring) to some of these words. Should we allow a non-believer to tell us which word should be red and which word should be blue?

Peace!!!

 

[CutlerB]

In my opinion this is a classic JW two step. You have allowed a JW to decide which words should be colored blue and which should be red. I suggest you re-read the OP with different coloring (Christian coloring) to some of these words. Should we allow a non-believer to tell us which word should be red and which word should be blue?

Peace!!!

No of course we shouldn’t. But my question is how to argue our Christian point to them!