Johova witness encounter

[Stream]

Pydpiper,
I agree with what others have said, you should talk to your wife about it. Seeing that she is Christian, she's probably curious about this branch of Christianity. And as for what it's about, why don't you ask the two Jehova's Witnesses whenever they come around next; they should at least know the company line. If you want to go beyond that and learn more or be critical of Christianity in general or just the Jehova's Witnesses then do a google search and I'm sure you'll get a good starting point. Posting about it here, however, will probably only spark a debate that belongs in the Underground forum.

Pydpiper,
Many have decided after hearing what the Bible really teaches, that it makes more sense than anything else that they have heard. In the final analysis, most people's resistance to these teachings results from not really wanting to be told what to do by any god. They usually just find themselves a religion that suits their moral inclination, or no religion. Everyone does get to choose.

The fact of the matter is that many people are turned off to Christianity after reading the Bible and finding things that any reasonable person (from a purely moral standpoint) would find objectionable. And as for picking and choosing whatever suits one's moral inclination, most Christians today do this. Following much of what the Bible says would simply not be socially acceptable today in developed countries, so modern Christianity has adapted to the times and people follow only the parts that suit them. After all, what the Bible "really" teaches is just a matter of interpretation -- at least if it is to be acceptable today. Reading the Bible without anyone interpreting it for you, most would find it a disturbing and grotesque read.

Jehovah is God's personal name. For some reason, it has been removed from many Bibles. It is, however, very evident in the oldest of existing manuscripts.

Jehova is not a name, it comes from the Hebrew stem YHWH, meaning "I am who I am". Early texts refer to 'El Shaddai' (meaning Lord Of The Lofty Mountain, later known as Jehova) and to his opposing counterpart, 'Adon'. For a period of time the people of Israel supported Adon (a people-supporting god) but ultimately succumbed to Jehova (storm god, and god of wrath and vengeance), and developed a new religion out of sheer fear of retribution -- this is the first time the name Jehova appears, around 500 BC. This is why Christians are called God-fearing instead of God-loving. In Sumerian records (going back as far as 3700 BC) these two gods were called Enlil (Jehova) and Enki (Adon). Sumerian records also tell us that these two gods were brothers, and according to the texts it was Enlil who brought the Flood, who destroyed Ur and Babylon, and who constantly opposed the education and enlightenment of humankind.

Who else is Witnessing about Jehovah, The God, the author of the Bible

God was not the author of the Bible because God does not exist. The Old Testament was written by Levites in Babylon, and the New Testament was put together by Constantine's Church Council when they hammered out a unified doctrine for Christianity.

Jesus is God's son, just like he claimed to be

He never claimed to be God's son. There are plenty of entries in The New Testament that says Jesus was "believed to be", "preached as" or "was called" the son of God, but it was never said by Jesus himself that he was the son of God. Nor was his mother a virgin. The belief that this is so stems from a mistranslation; the Semitic word translated to mean 'virgin' was 'almah', meaning no more than 'young woman'. However, it was translated into the Greek word 'parthenos' (meaning virgin).

 

[raggie33]

i always try to convince em to change there outfit.to a tie dye tshirt and penny loafers and coudury pants

 

[alard]

Jehovah's Witnesses

The fact of the matter is that many people are turned off to Christianity after reading the Bible and finding things that any reasonable person (from a purely moral standpoint) would find objectionable. And as for picking and choosing whatever suits one's moral inclination, most Christians today do this. Following much of what the Bible says would simply not be socially acceptable today in developed countries, so modern Christianity has adapted to the times and people follow only the parts that suit them. After all, what the Bible "really" teaches is just a matter of interpretation -- at least if it is to be acceptable today. Reading the Bible without anyone interpreting it for you, most would find it a disturbing and grotesque read.

Jehovah is not a name, it comes from the Hebrew stem YHWH, meaning "I am who I am". Early texts refer to 'El Shaddai' (meaning Lord Of The Lofty Mountain, later known as Jehovah) and to his opposing counterpart, 'Adon'. For a period of time the people of Israel supported Adon (a people-supporting god) but ultimately succumbed to Jehova (storm god, and god of wrath and vengeance), and developed a new religion out of sheer fear of retribution -- this is the first time the name Jehova appears, around 500 BC. This is why Christians are called God-fearing instead of God-loving. In Sumerian records (going back as far as 3700 BC) these two gods were called Enlil (Jehova) and Enki (Adon). Sumerian records also tell us that these two gods were brothers, and according to the texts it was Enlil who brought the Flood, who destroyed Ur and Babylon, and who constantly opposed the education and enlightenment of humankind.

God was not the author of the Bible because God does not exist. The Old Testament was written by Levites in Babylon, and the New Testament was put together by Constantine's Church Council when they hammered out a unified doctrine for Christianity.

He never claimed to be God's son. There are plenty of entries in The New Testament that says Jesus was "believed to be", "preached as" or "was called" the son of God, but it was never said by Jesus himself that he was the son of God. Nor was his mother a virgin. The belief that this is so stems from a mistranslation; the Semitic word translated to mean 'virgin' was 'almah', meaning no more than 'young woman'. However, it was translated into the Greek word 'parthenos' (meaning virgin).

Let me repeat, I will not debate.
I will allow the statements that I have made to stand on their own merit.
Hopefully, those that are really interested in truth will check the facts.
The internet is not the best place to get accurate information, in many cases.
Discussions like this only serve to prove that assertion.

 

[Stream]

Hopefully, those that are really interested in truth will check the facts.

Hopefully they do

I will allow the statements that I have made to stand on their own merit.

Unfortunately they don't. I felt the need to point out to you some of the fallacies and errors and provide some facts.

The internet is not the best place to get accurate information, in many cases.
Discussions like this only serve to prove that assertion.

The Internet is a vast collection of all sorts of information, I pointed it out as a good starting place if he had a desire to get an understanding of religion. Of course it is up to the individual to cross check facts and make up their minds about what sounds the most reasonable. I pointed out some facts in response to your posts, if you're intention with the last statement was to suggest that they were inaccurate please go ahead and disprove them. But the attitude you display tells me that you'd rather avoid valid points by not getting into any meaningful debate. I realize this type of discussion is better suited for the Underground, so if you feel you have any points of your own let's start a topic there.

 

[cheapo]

if you arent interested, you could simply tell them. Better that then to possibly be "recruited" into a religion that you and your wife initially were'nt interested in.

-David

 

[Empath]

It's apparent that answering questions of "what is this religion about", can't be addressed to a significant degree, without the insistence that it be addressed by debate. Perhaps Stream's comment of "I felt the need to point out to you some of the fallacies and errors" offers the reason that discussion of such polar viewpoints and controversy can't be expected within the scope of our expectations. The "need to point out fallacies and errors", will require a resource other than this forum.

The comments have been interesting and appreciated. But now, as it begins taking on the features of a dispute, we'll close it.