C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
A giant crucifix or statue of Mary would scare them off too.
- Status
M
Matariel
Guest
In which case the holy Catholic Church wins hands down.
M
Matariel
Guest
Good. I have a statue of the Blessed Mother in the frontyard, a shrine to the Sacred Heart in the livingroom, and a crucifix, I’m good to go.
P
pprimeau1976
Guest
I complain that the JW’s go to the neighbor’s houses and not to mine. I just want one to have a conversation with me so I can hae them run in circles. Then my wife pointed out to me that I have a Catholic Radio bumper sticker on my car.Good. I have a statue of the Blessed Mother in the frontyard, a shrine to the Sacred Heart in the livingroom, and a crucifix, I’m good to go.
I
itsme2
Guest
Just last year,a vehicle plunged into the river,killing all three passengers,who were JW members.When the authorities,notified the parents about it and requested them to retrieve the bodies,the father responded that they (authorities) can keep them(cadavers),as they are already in heaven! This is unfanthomable!
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
Not quite.Good. I have a statue of the Blessed Mother in the frontyard, a shrine to the Sacred Heart in the livingroom, and a crucifix, I’m good to go.
Get a stuffed donkey. Put a picture of Charles Russell over the donkey’s face. Paint ‘1914?’ on it.
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Oh my. I seemed to have nearly laughed myself out of my chair.Not quite.
Get a stuffed donkey. Put a picture of Charles Russell over the donkey’s face. Paint ‘1914?’ on it.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
The world was supposed to end in 1975. We shouldn’t even be having this discussion now.Oh my. I seemed to have nearly laughed myself out of my chair.
M
Matariel
Guest
Oh, I see you’re planning to go swimming (the Tiber) in 2009! Good luck and godspeed!Oh my. I seemed to have nearly laughed myself out of my chair.
This April I am going to be recieved into the Catholic Church on Easter Vigil Mass. Can’t wait! :extrahappy:
Confession’s going to be scary (I’ve done alot of stuff I regret) but nothing I can’t handle.
Anyway, not trying to derail the thread. Oops!
F
flameburns623
Guest
Putting up military emblems or religious iconography will NOT keep Jehovah’s Witnesses away. In areas with a military base, Witnesses frequently tract in any public areas of the base, unless this is explicitly disallowed. (Usually, if this is truly a ‘public’ portion of the base, free speech and freedom-of-religion prevail and the military cannot inhibit such activity, except to the degree it interferes with legitimate military business). Religious symbols may even invite visits, since the Witnesses will have a clue that you are interested in religious topics. (Political signage can have the same effect–the Witnesses will take the signs as a clue that they can bring a message about current events to your door and possibly be well-received).
Such tactics may “seem” to work, largely because the Witnesses may hit a neighborhood several times one year (perhaps because they have had several interested parties nearby and/or have on-going ‘Bible Studies’–or someone in the neighborhood just happens to be a Witness). They may move to other territories after awhile. Canvassing is supposed to be systematic and all of that but I’m sure there are deviations from the ordinary course of things, for reasons I just mentioned or other reasons. Also–it may just be the ‘luck of the draw’ that one is home several times when they are in the neighborhood–and then just NOT home several times thereafter.
One CAN put up a sign on one’s porch or door which says “PLEASE: NO RELIGION OR PREACHING HERE”. Most Witnesses will honor this, and if they don’t, you can find out what Kingdom Hall they are from and explain that your requests are not being honored. Of course–the biggest thing to keep in mind is that such signs must be clearly visible–very often, over time, such signs fade or get moved around to where they are less prominent, and they then get overlooked.
Sometimes, even the most obvious signs get overlooked–ever seen someone leaning on a “No Smoking” sign with a cigarette in their mouths? And then pointed to the sign to see the absolute shock of the smoker when they realize what the sign actually says? Allowing for human error of course, such signs SHOULD be honored in the vast majority of cases.
Of course, one can simply greet the Witnesses with a glass of water or a cup of coffee or hot cocoa; explain that you are a Catholic and very happy in your own faith; and then, wish them well while asking them not to return in the future. I have had relatives who were Witnesses, and I can tell you they are much more accustomed to being treated harshly or cruelly than with Christian kindness, courtesy, or respect.
Such tactics may “seem” to work, largely because the Witnesses may hit a neighborhood several times one year (perhaps because they have had several interested parties nearby and/or have on-going ‘Bible Studies’–or someone in the neighborhood just happens to be a Witness). They may move to other territories after awhile. Canvassing is supposed to be systematic and all of that but I’m sure there are deviations from the ordinary course of things, for reasons I just mentioned or other reasons. Also–it may just be the ‘luck of the draw’ that one is home several times when they are in the neighborhood–and then just NOT home several times thereafter.
One CAN put up a sign on one’s porch or door which says “PLEASE: NO RELIGION OR PREACHING HERE”. Most Witnesses will honor this, and if they don’t, you can find out what Kingdom Hall they are from and explain that your requests are not being honored. Of course–the biggest thing to keep in mind is that such signs must be clearly visible–very often, over time, such signs fade or get moved around to where they are less prominent, and they then get overlooked.
Sometimes, even the most obvious signs get overlooked–ever seen someone leaning on a “No Smoking” sign with a cigarette in their mouths? And then pointed to the sign to see the absolute shock of the smoker when they realize what the sign actually says? Allowing for human error of course, such signs SHOULD be honored in the vast majority of cases.
Of course, one can simply greet the Witnesses with a glass of water or a cup of coffee or hot cocoa; explain that you are a Catholic and very happy in your own faith; and then, wish them well while asking them not to return in the future. I have had relatives who were Witnesses, and I can tell you they are much more accustomed to being treated harshly or cruelly than with Christian kindness, courtesy, or respect.
K
Keystone28
Guest
Dont EVER accept any of their literature! I was talking to a woman who was a recent convert to Jehovah’s witnesses once, and she told me the first thing they told her is if you get the literature into someones hand, you have to go back, and back to talk to them. I didnt believe her, and my neighbor across the way came by with one of her JH friends, and I took the pamphlet out of courtesy (I’m a southerner after all), and they bugged me for the next 8 months! I finally told them we were Roman Catholic and had no intention of turning away from the true church, but I wish you well anyway, and will keep you in my intentions at mass.They did not like that at all!
But they left me alone.
But they left me alone.
C
clarioncall
Guest
I am a Catholic .I see it this way. The progressive replacement of Christ in Christmas, to the point that these Christmas holidays are called Winter Holidays or just Holidays has much to do with it. Probably it has something to do with this. The solution is to focus on Jesus ,and not on the presence /absense of holiday material
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Thanks and congrats to you as well. I’m looking forward to confession, but I’m weird. [/hijack]Oh, I see you’re planning to go swimming (the Tiber) in 2009! Good luck and godspeed!
This April I am going to be recieved into the Catholic Church on Easter Vigil Mass. Can’t wait! :extrahappy:
Confession’s going to be scary (I’ve done alot of stuff I regret) but nothing I can’t handle.
Anyway, not trying to derail the thread. Oops!
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
You should get the book “Jehovah’s witnesses and the hour of darkness”. It’s all about how they use subliminal imagry in their artwork.
T
thegame
Guest
A JW, a few of them we believe, were hiding their leaflets around my friends business. Concerned customers would think it was from the business I finally spoke to a woman who had talked to some of the employees.
A shockingly strange experience. Her claims, her false statements about history, her ignorance of the Bible’s origin (and no idea they change theirs), and her eventual amazement when confronted by someone with knowledge.
I begged she allow me to come and debate anytime she wanted w/ anyone she wanted - preferrably at “the hall.” All I asked is that they tell their congregation that a lay Catholic will be here on so-and-so a day to debate any one person they liked, and they could attend.
After she agreed, I told her, “I know you’ll never invite me. Not because I’ll convince you, but because no rational person will be left within 3 weeks of being given information to research and think about on their own.” She said, “You’ll be invited, don’t worry.” Never heard from her again.
I saw her weeks later, and as I smiled and waved, she nearly ran away, having obviously pitched my request to the congregation.
JW is a farse that no thinking person could ascribe to. Sorry.
A shockingly strange experience. Her claims, her false statements about history, her ignorance of the Bible’s origin (and no idea they change theirs), and her eventual amazement when confronted by someone with knowledge.
I begged she allow me to come and debate anytime she wanted w/ anyone she wanted - preferrably at “the hall.” All I asked is that they tell their congregation that a lay Catholic will be here on so-and-so a day to debate any one person they liked, and they could attend.
After she agreed, I told her, “I know you’ll never invite me. Not because I’ll convince you, but because no rational person will be left within 3 weeks of being given information to research and think about on their own.” She said, “You’ll be invited, don’t worry.” Never heard from her again.
I saw her weeks later, and as I smiled and waved, she nearly ran away, having obviously pitched my request to the congregation.
JW is a farse that no thinking person could ascribe to. Sorry.
G
Germany
Guest
I agree with the article 100%. BUT, keep in mind that Catholicism isn’t all that innocent either, they have many faults which is why I’m no longer a Catholic. The JWs claim they use the KJV of the Bible more than their own. Many young people join them to escape the military in the event the draft should be reinstated as JWs don’t bother with such matters teaching the young men its wrong to fight for their country.
M
Muse2010
Guest
Wow ignorance at its finest. If you study the history behind birthdays and MANY holidays that we celebrate today you will see that they had and still do have very cultish/pagan origins and symbols. JW just did their homework and choose not to partake. Looks like you should be doing yours as well. You could be partaking in pagan rituals and not even know it. His people will parish for lack of knowledge.
M
Muse2010
Guest
EXACTLY. All of you in here slamming JW and you don’t even know your own bibles! JW would run circles around you with their knowledge of the bible. I’ll tell you why the Vatican is concerned about JW: because they will actually teach you what’s in that old dusty book sitting on your mantle as a show piece.
S
Soutane
Guest
Arian Heresy was defeated
I’ll pit my Catholic knowledge of the Bible against yours,arian any day of the week.The Catholics on this website KNOW their scripture,you would be eviscerated.No Jw cultist can take the heat here and run after a dozen posts.
S
Soutane
Guest
A heresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Doctrine
First among the doctrinal disputes which troubled Christians after Constantine had recognized the Church in A.D. 313, and the parent of many more during some three centuries, Arianism occupies a large place in ecclesiastical history. It is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore will appear strange in modern eyes. But we shall better grasp its meaning if we term it an Eastern attempt to rationalize the creed by stripping it of mystery so far as the relation of Christ to God was concerned. In the New Testament and in Church teaching Jesus of Nazareth appears as the Son of God. This name He took to Himself (Matthew 11:27; John 10:36), while the Fourth Gospel declares Him to be the Word (Logos), Who in the beginning was with God and was God, by Whom all things were made. A similar doctrine is laid down by St. Paul, in his undoubtedly genuine Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. It is reiterated in the Letters of Ignatius, and accounts for Pliny’s observation that Christians in their assemblies chanted a hymn to Christ as God. But the question how the Son was related to the Father (Himself acknowledged on all hands to be the one Supreme Deity), gave rise, between the years A.D. 60 and 200, to a number of Theosophic systems, called generally Gnosticism, and having for their authors Basilides, Valentinus, Tatian, and other Greek speculators. Though all of these visited Rome, they had no following in the West, which remained free from controversies of an abstract nature, and was faithful to the creed of its baptism. Intellectual centres were chiefly Alexandria and Antioch, Egyptian or Syrian, and speculation was carried on in Greek. The Roman Church held steadfastly by tradition. Under these circumstances, when Gnostic schools had passed away with their “conjugations” of Divine powers, and “emanations” from the Supreme unknowable God (the “Deep” and the “Silence”) all speculation was thrown into the form of an inquiry touching the “likeness” of the Son to His Father and “sameness” of His Essence. Catholics had always maintained that Christ was truly the Son, and truly God. They worshipped Him with divine honours; they would never consent to separate Him, in idea or reality, from the Father, Whose Word, Reason, Mind, He was, and in Whose Heart He abode from eternity. But the technical terms of doctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physis), person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christian sects of philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The adaptation of a vocabulary employed by Plato and Aristotle to Christian truth was a matter of time; it could not be done in a day; and when accomplished for the Greek it had to be undertaken for the Latin, which did not lend itself readily to necessary yet subtle distinctions. That disputes should spring up even among the orthodox who all held one faith, was inevitable. And of these wranglings the rationalist would take advantage in order to substitute for the ancient creed his own inventions. The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in any true sense God could have a Son; as Mohammed tersely said afterwards, “God neither begets, nor is He begotten” (Koran, 112). We have learned to call that denial Unitarianism. It was the ultimate scope of Arian opposition to what Christians had always believed. But the Arian, though he did not come straight down from the Gnostic, pursued a line of argument and taught a view which the speculations of the Gnostic had made familiar. He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.
Doctrine
First among the doctrinal disputes which troubled Christians after Constantine had recognized the Church in A.D. 313, and the parent of many more during some three centuries, Arianism occupies a large place in ecclesiastical history. It is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore will appear strange in modern eyes. But we shall better grasp its meaning if we term it an Eastern attempt to rationalize the creed by stripping it of mystery so far as the relation of Christ to God was concerned. In the New Testament and in Church teaching Jesus of Nazareth appears as the Son of God. This name He took to Himself (Matthew 11:27; John 10:36), while the Fourth Gospel declares Him to be the Word (Logos), Who in the beginning was with God and was God, by Whom all things were made. A similar doctrine is laid down by St. Paul, in his undoubtedly genuine Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. It is reiterated in the Letters of Ignatius, and accounts for Pliny’s observation that Christians in their assemblies chanted a hymn to Christ as God. But the question how the Son was related to the Father (Himself acknowledged on all hands to be the one Supreme Deity), gave rise, between the years A.D. 60 and 200, to a number of Theosophic systems, called generally Gnosticism, and having for their authors Basilides, Valentinus, Tatian, and other Greek speculators. Though all of these visited Rome, they had no following in the West, which remained free from controversies of an abstract nature, and was faithful to the creed of its baptism. Intellectual centres were chiefly Alexandria and Antioch, Egyptian or Syrian, and speculation was carried on in Greek. The Roman Church held steadfastly by tradition. Under these circumstances, when Gnostic schools had passed away with their “conjugations” of Divine powers, and “emanations” from the Supreme unknowable God (the “Deep” and the “Silence”) all speculation was thrown into the form of an inquiry touching the “likeness” of the Son to His Father and “sameness” of His Essence. Catholics had always maintained that Christ was truly the Son, and truly God. They worshipped Him with divine honours; they would never consent to separate Him, in idea or reality, from the Father, Whose Word, Reason, Mind, He was, and in Whose Heart He abode from eternity. But the technical terms of doctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physis), person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christian sects of philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The adaptation of a vocabulary employed by Plato and Aristotle to Christian truth was a matter of time; it could not be done in a day; and when accomplished for the Greek it had to be undertaken for the Latin, which did not lend itself readily to necessary yet subtle distinctions. That disputes should spring up even among the orthodox who all held one faith, was inevitable. And of these wranglings the rationalist would take advantage in order to substitute for the ancient creed his own inventions. The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in any true sense God could have a Son; as Mohammed tersely said afterwards, “God neither begets, nor is He begotten” (Koran, 112). We have learned to call that denial Unitarianism. It was the ultimate scope of Arian opposition to what Christians had always believed. But the Arian, though he did not come straight down from the Gnostic, pursued a line of argument and taught a view which the speculations of the Gnostic had made familiar. He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.
- Status