The Truth about the Jehovah Witness

originally posted by: Topcraft
Too late for me to edit,

I just wanted to add, The name Jehovah appears 7 times in the King James Version, 7000 times in the Jewish traditional Old Testament. If Christians are forbidden to use the name, then why is it in our Bible?????

There are 36 hallelujahs in Handles, The Messiah. I know because I just counted them. Christians love that composition. Every Christian church has played it I’m sure multiple times in their history, it’s beautiful. The best part is the lyrics. Read them in English. Really inspiring, and you wouldn’t be disappointed. Heard mainly at Easter and Christmas.

Now that I think about it, I’m not sure they used it much in sermons. Unless it was on the subject of The Old Testament. Very much said in Bible studies if I remember correctly. There is no New Testament, without the Old Testament. We don’t deny it, we teach it.
a reply to: Topcraft

Very well worded! In fact Jesus commissioned his disciples to go into all the inhabited earth baptizing people in the name of his Father (Jehovah), in the name of Jesus, and in the name of the holy spirit. So it is a command by Jesus to preach and teach and baptize in Jehovah's name.

And as you mentioned even the very first edition of the King James Version of the Bible did use Jehovah's proper name. I think the light is going off inside your head. And that is wonderful.

Unfortunately the recent Pope has banned the usage of Jehovah's great an illustrious name, even in the hymns that contained it:

Vatican Says No 'Yahweh' In Songs, Prayers At Catholic Masses

The Vatican has reiterated a directive that the name of God revealed in the tetragrammaton YHWH is not to be pronounced in Catholic liturgy or in music. Catholics at worship should neither sing nor pronounce the name of God as "Yahweh," the Vatican has said, citing the authority of Jewish and Christian practice.

The instruction came in a June 29 letter to Catholic bishops conferences around the world from the Vatican's top liturgical body, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, by an explicit "directive" of Pope Benedict XVI. "In recent years, the practice has crept in of pronouncing the God of Israel's proper name," the letter noted, referring to the four-consonant Hebrew Tetragrammaton, YHWH.

That name is commonly pronounced as "Yahweh," though other versions include "Jaweh" and "Yehovah."

...

Invoking a Vatican document from 2001, the Congregation reminded bishops that the name "Yahweh" in Catholic worship should be replaced by the Latin "Dominus" (Lord) or a word "equivalent in meaning" in the local language.

The Vatican's move will require changes in a number of hymns and prayers currently used in American churches, but not to the Mass itself, said the U.S. bishops' top liturgical official.

I love Handel's Arias'.

In fact a number of them use the proper name of Jehovah. Here is one of them:

a reply to: randomuser2034

Didn’t you forget something? Do you need help remembering what that was? I’m sure someone could help you. The psychology that you are trying to use here won’t work on me. Reply to the edit, and ignore the post? Really? If this keeps up I’m going to have stop being so nice to you, and neither of us wants that. This op will be around for a long long time. If the site goes down this year, before it dies it will be archived somewhere else. This is the internet. It goes on forever in the digital universe and in the actual one. Fast in one, slowly in the other, possibly on to the very reaches of heaven itself.

You refuse to answer when you are asked direct pertinent, and I might add, simple questions. Why? Sorry, that would be a question wouldn’t it. I’m beginning to believe that you are afraid to answer because you have no answers, that, or your handlers won’t allow you to. Please prove me wrong.

I’ll leave you with this for now, I really don’t give a rats ass what the pope says on that particular matter. It’s an attempt to distance Catholics farther from the Jews due to the current struggle in Palestine. Kind of obvious isn’t it?

In my mind, just an opinion really, you are hopelessly lost between Judaism and Christianity. Definitely not a Jew, definitely not a Christian. Drifting somewhere in between blind.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Topcraft

for what it's worth, any mason who joins the Scottish Rite (at least in the southern juristiction) becomes a 32nd degree mason. So it's not some elusive degree, it's just what it is. Like all masons are 3rd degree master masons once they are raised. I know nothing of the JW, but I do know about freemasonry.

Was Charles Taze Russell a Mason? No, he was not!

There is no point in sharing the facts/truths about something with those who "will not put up with" the truth of the matter, because it's the lie that 'tickles their ears' instead.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.” (1 Timothy 4:1,2).

During the Middle Ages an incredible rumor spread among the so-called Christians of Europe. It was whispered that each year at Passover, the Jews murdered a Christian and used his blood in their rituals. Sometimes they were said to capture Christian children and torture them horribly before killing them and using their blood. Right up until the 20th century, during the Nazi period in Germany, this rumor was used as an excuse to persecute the Jews.

The story was investigated and disproved several times, yet it persisted for almost a thousand years. If someone had told it to you, would you have shared in spreading it? Hopefully, all of us would have had enough common sense or compassion not to do so. Yet rumors are persistent and complex things. Once started, they are difficult to stop. Even today, absurd rumors spring up and spread like wildfire.

For example, some decades ago, Procter & Gamble, a large firm supplying household products in the United States, was victimized by a rumor that it promoted Satanism and that its trademark was really a demon symbol. Another widespread rumor had it that a well-known chain of fast-food stores was putting worms in its hamburgers! Some decades ago it was widely believed that a member of the singing group the Beatles had died in an auto accident and had been replaced by a double. Even the Watchtower Society’s publications have been the subject of rumors​—for example, that one of the artists had secretly been introducing pictures of demons into the illustrations, was subsequently found out and disfellowshiped!

Would you have shared in spreading any such stories? If so, you would have been​—perhaps unwittingly—​spreading an untruth, since they were all false. Certainly, the rumor concerning the Society’s publications was harmful, as well as slanderous.

Many years ago, Jehovah God told the Israelites: “You shall not spread a baseless rumour.” (Exodus 23:1, The New English Bible) There was good reason for that command. Such rumors have bad results. They make the one spreading them a liar, something Jehovah hates. (Proverbs 6:16-19) They affect the reputation of the subject of the rumor. And they deceive the person who listens to the rumor, perhaps inciting him to act unwisely. (Numbers 13:32–14:4) It is most unloving thus to deceive our friends. It goes against God’s command: “You must not deceive, and you must not deal falsely with one another. ”​—Leviticus 19:11; Proverbs 14:25.

Hence, if we pass on to others a story that we have heard, we should be careful to have the facts right. But how can we do that? One thing that will help us is an understanding of the nature of rumors.

A rumor is “talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source”; or, “a statement or report current without known authority for its truth.” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary) Rumors may spread by word of mouth or may appear in a more “official” guise, even in print, on the radio or on a website like watchtowerlies.com. The fact that something was on television, on such a website or in the newspaper does not mean it is true.

How do rumors start? Often it is impossible to say. A loose comment by someone may be picked up, repeated and exaggerated. The suggestion that something might happen can easily become an assertion that it will happen, and then it may be turned to say it did happen. Even a joke can start a rumor if someone takes it seriously and repeats it.

Rumors spring up readily in a climate of fear. When he was foretelling the conditions in Jerusalem as its end approached, the prophet Ezekiel said: “Shuddering will come over them, and they will look in vain for peace. Tempest shall follow upon tempest and rumour upon rumour.” (Ezekiel 7:25, 26, NE) As fear gripped the populace, Jerusalem would become a hotbed of rumors. (see also the article The Manipulation of Information and the section about "Playing on the Emotions"; fear, pride and hatred are discussed there; coming back to what was mentioned about the rumors concerning Jews earlier, the section "Lies, Lies!" opens with: Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies. Consider, for example, the lies that Martin Luther wrote in 1543 about the Jews in Europe: “They have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children . . . They are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm.” His exhortation to so-called Christians? “Set fire to their synagogues or schools . . . Their houses [should] also be razed and destroyed.” [end quote] So that particular lie is pushing both the fear and hatred buttons in those falling victim to it because it's 'tickling their ears'.)

Rumors can also be started deliberately. When the soldiers who had been guarding the tomb of the impaled Jesus reported the amazing events they had witnessed at Jesus’ resurrection, the elders of the Jews told them to spread a false rumor. They said: “Say, ‘His disciples came in the night and stole him while we were sleeping.’” The soldiers obeyed. “So they took the silver pieces and did as they were instructed; and this saying has been spread abroad among the Jews up to this very day.”​—Matthew 28:13-15.

More interesting is the question: Why do rumors, once started, spread with such persistence? Often it is simply because people want to believe them (it's 'tickling their ears', 2 Tim 4:3,4). Some newspaper reporters make a career out of repeating rumors about prominent people. They would soon be out of work if there was no market for such stories. Many people are like the Greeks of Paul’s day, always avid to hear “something new.”​—Acts 17:21.

Rumors spread, too, because they fit in with widely held misconceptions and prejudices. The false rumor about the Jews’ killing Christians doubtless fell on receptive ears because non-Jews did not understand the Jews. They feared them or were jealous of them. Rumors may also reflect widespread uneasiness about something. The rumor about worms in the hamburgers may have persisted because of people’s nervousness about additives and secret ingredients in foods. And the rumor about Procter & Gamble may have taken root because so many people today have a fascination with demonism and spiritism.

Rumors will also flourish where governments or authorities act secretively. And they can even be nurtured by wishful thinking. For decades, stories have circulated that flying saucers have landed, supposedly carrying benign creatures from advanced scientific societies on other planets. In this troubled age (or "system of things"; 2 Cor 4:4), some people may find it comforting to believe that these beings really exist.

Moreover, a rumor may be sparked or seemingly confirmed by misinterpretation of facts. In the first century it was rumored that the apostle Paul was encouraging the Jews to apostatize from Moses. (Acts 21:21, 24) The rumor was false, but it may have been fueled by the fact that Paul, obeying the decision of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, taught that Gentile Christians did not have to come under the Mosaic Law.​—Acts 15:5, 28, 29.

Who is there that has not heard a rumor? The more fantastic and excitement-arousing or scandalous the rumor, often the more readily it is believed and spread. Rumors excite, disturb, cause anxiety, raise false hopes and may slander people. Obviously, then, rumors are something to be reckoned with. How can one avoid being misled, disturbed unnecessarily or falsely encouraged?

First of all, it will help you to keep in mind the definition of a rumor, given earlier but here's another—”a story or statement talked of as news without any proof that it is true.” Whether it has basis in actuality or not, the rumor lacks acceptable authority. So you can detect a rumor not only by the obvious words “there is a rumor that . . .” (or to quote Topcraft from the OP: “it is also rumored . . . that . . .”) but also by the fact that its distinguishing feature is lack of sound evidence. The rumor has no secure standard of evidence. Well, then, should you believe rumors?

Since a rumor, when checked out, all too often bears the same resemblance to truth as a broken mirror does to a whole one, would it be wise to accept it as authentic information? In most cases, no, especially if the rumor does not personally affect you or if it is not reasonable or if it contradicts sound facts in your possession. If you blindly regard a rumor as true, passing it on, remember, you may be held accountable for it.

If a rumor does not involve you personally and it is something that cannot be easily confirmed then why risk spreading something that may not be true?

Christians especially must recognize a rumor for what it is, for they are under command by God: “Now that you have put away deceit, each one of you speak truth with his neighbor, . . . Let a rotten word not come out of your mouth, but only what is good for building up as the need may be, to impart what is beneficial to the hearers..”—Eph. 4:25, 29.

[continued in next comment]

Seperate the true from the false.

So how can we determine whether a story is true or merely a rumor? Here are some things to bear in mind when someone shares a choice piece of information with you:

Who told you the story? Is he the sort of person who never says something unless he is sure of his facts? Or is he always trying to pry into other people’s affairs? Is he trying to be first in coming up with juicy stories? The source of the story makes a big difference as to whether it is likely to be accurate or not.

Was the one who told you the story in a position to know the facts? Typical rumors often start something like this: “I heard from my uncle who knows the man who works in . . .” If you hear that kind of introduction, beware! Some children play a game where they stand in a circle and one whispers a short sentence to his neighbor. His neighbor whispers it to the next one, who in turn passes it on. When the sentence has passed all the way around the circle, the children have a lot of fun seeing how much it has changed. Many of us have played that game, but have we learned the lesson from it? When stories pass from one person to another, they inevitably change and soon bear little resemblance to their original form. Thus if you cannot pinpoint the exact source of the story, it is probably safe to assume that it is distorted or even entirely false. ( a related term to this phenomenon is called "spreading second-hand information", a common occurance in anti-JW propaganda, lies and the forming of prejudice)

Is the story slanderous? If a story detracts from the good name of some person, profession, race or organization, treat it with extreme caution. This is true even if you do not feel particularly friendly toward that group or person. Slander is slander and lies are lies, whoever the victims are. Jesus was frank in his condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees, but can you imagine his spreading slanderous rumors about them?​—1 Peter 2:21, 22.

Is the story plausible? Is it really likely that spaceships are visiting our planet? Or that a major commercial company would make a pact with the Devil? Or do dedicated artists really hide faces in magazine pictures? Stories that sound so unlikely should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

This is not to say that amazing things never happen. Sometimes they do. But when we hear about them we should act wisely and not gullibly believe every story that comes along. When stories spread around Palestine that a carpenter from Nazareth was performing miracles the reports were, as it happened, true. (Matthew 4:24) Nevertheless, when John the Baptist heard them, he sent his disciples to find out exactly what was going on. (Matthew 11:2, 3) That was a balanced reaction.

When the apostle Thomas heard of the resurrection of Jesus, he doubted. (John 20:24, 25) But in this case he should have realized that this was not a baseless rumor. He knew about the resurrections that Jesus himself had performed, and he had heard Jesus speak about his own coming death and resurrection. (Matthew 16:21; John 11:43, 44) Moreover, the ones giving him the report were people he knew he could trust. And they were not repeating a story they had heard thirdhand. They were eyewitnesses, and they were available for him to question to see if they could possibly have been mistaken.

Yes, some stories we hear may be true. But common sense will tell us that in any nation, village or even organization, rumors will spread, especially rumors that reflect the basic desires or fears of the community. And there always exists a strong possibility that a rumor is, at best, a distortion of the truth. Hence, if you hear a story and cannot pinpoint the source of it, think for yourself and be sure of your facts before you pass it on to others. Remember, “in the abundance of words there does not fail to be transgression, but the one keeping his lips in check is acting discreetly.” (Proverbs 10:19) Do not be a channel for rumor, but rather, be a “dead end.” Thus you will fulfill the words of the apostle Paul: “Wherefore, now that you have put away falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, because we are members belonging to one another.”​—Ephesians 4:25. (using an older translation now as at the end of my previous comment)

To protect yourself against false reports, rumors and slander, it is well to weigh what you hear, to test rumors with what facts or evidence you have. You should also want to protect your friends. Unfortunately, many people do not do that. They hear a rumor and pass it on as truth if the item is of sufficient interest, even though it may injure someone. It is amazing with what speed rumors can travel. They can spread through a factory, an office or a community with greater speed than many other methods of communication.

The rumor that Nero set fire to Rome in 64 C.E., for instance, must have spread like wildfire. That rumor was put out by Nero’s enemies, and most modern scholars doubt that Nero was in any way responsible for the fire. They regard it as accidental. But the rumor that Nero set fire to the city has persisted down to this day. To counteract the false rumor, Nero spread one of his own: That the Christians set fire to the city. This led to a terrible persecution of the Christians.

When rumors come your way, what reasonable measures can you take to protect yourself? If evidence is lacking, usually it is wise to disregard the rumor. It is sobering to realize that you do not know. So when evidence is absent, be careful about getting excited, disturbed, angry, elated, discouraged or charged with whatever emotion the rumor is likely to evoke. (coming back to the section "Playing on the Emotions" linked earlier in the article "The Manipulation of Information")

Should you have facts that prove the rumor false, then puncture the rumor balloon before it travels farther. (coming back to the opening link in my previous comment)

"Sect" is a synonym for "cult".

...

Name-Calling

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.

For example, in recent years a powerful antisect sentiment has swept many countries in Europe and elsewhere. This trend has stirred emotions, created the image of an enemy, and reinforced existing prejudices against religious minorities. Often, “sect” becomes a catchword. “‘Sect’ is another word for ‘heretic,’” wrote German Professor Martin Kriele in 1993, “and a heretic today in Germany, as in former times, is [condemned to extermination]—if not by fire . . . , then by character assassination, isolation and economic destruction.”

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis notes that “bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, . . . sent [people] to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen.”

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. And, as in the case of envy, fear can be played upon. The Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, of February 15, 1999, reported the following from Moscow: “When three girls committed suicide in Moscow last week, the Russian media immediately suggested they were fanatical followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Note the word “fanatical.” Naturally, people would be fearful of a fanatic religious organization that supposedly drives young people to suicide. Were these unfortunate girls really connected with Jehovah’s Witnesses in some way?

The Globe continued: “Police later admitted the girls had nothing to do with [Jehovah’s Witnesses]. But by then a Moscow television channel had already launched a new assault on the sect, telling viewers that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had collaborated with Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany—despite historical evidence that thousands of their members were victims of the Nazi death camps.” In the mind of the misinformed and possibly fearful public, Jehovah’s Witnesses were either a suicidal cult or Nazi collaborators!

Hatred is a strong emotion exploited by propagandists. Loaded language is particularly effective in triggering it. There seems to be a nearly endless supply of nasty words that promote and exploit hatred toward particular racial, ethnic, or religious groups.

...

"Cult" is one of those words, as used specifically to "promote and exploit hatred toward" a religious group. (often playing all innocent in the process, as if that's not at all what they are doing when slandering a relgious group of being a cult when there is plenty of evidence they are not)

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
"Cult" is one of those words, as used specifically to "promote and exploit hatred toward" a religious group. (often playing all innocent in the process, as if that's not at all what they are doing when slandering a relgious group of being a cult when there is plenty of evidence they are not)

More evidence (of course, this won't 'tickle the ears' of most, if not all, who are in this thread; just like the evidence linked above, so according to 2 Tim 4:3,4, it is unlikely someone here will even look at the evidence at hand, or is willing to hear out what they perceive as 'the other side', the indoctrinating "cult" whose words cannot be trusted, because "they will not put with" it, because it is not "according to their desires"; but that won't make the evidence or the facts/truths go away, the choice to ignore them and believe that which tickles one's ears even though it is false instead, is a personal one, as are the consequences described at the end of 2 Cor 11:15 and 2 Peter 2:3):

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Cult?

2 Corinthians 11:11-15

For what reason? Because I do not love you? God knows I do.

12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to eliminate the pretext of those who are wanting a basis* [Or “pretext.”] for being found equal to us in the things* [Or “the office.”] about which they boast. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.

2 Peter 2:1-3

However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct,* [Or “their acts of shameless conduct.”] and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping.

Christian (Insight on the Scriptures)

... To outsiders Christianity was referred to as “The Way” (Ac 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4), and opponents called it “the sect of the Nazarenes” or just “this sect.”​—Ac 24:5; 28:22.

Also as seen from 2 Peter 2:2 above, “the way of the truth”.

The relevant song, “This is the Way” starts at 3:48 below:

Some excellent information ....

Who Are the Jehovahs Witnesses?

Distinctive Beliefs of the Jehovahs Witnesses

a reply to: FlyersFan

Thank you for the demonstration of second-hand information ( a term I spoke about in my commentary).

If a person truly wants to know what the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are, go to the source.

What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe? (jw.org)

From the homepage of jw.org:

...

Jehovah’s Witnesses—Who Are We?

We come from hundreds of ethnic and language backgrounds, yet we are united by common goals. Above all, we want to honor Jehovah, the God of the Bible and the Creator of all things. We do our best to imitate Jesus Christ and are proud to be called Christians. Each of us regularly spends time helping people learn about the Bible and God’s Kingdom. Because we witness, or talk, about Jehovah God and his Kingdom, we are known as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Explore our site. Read the Bible online. Learn more about us and our beliefs.

On the right, there is also a link to a video entitled: Jehovah’s Witnesses​—Who Are We? Below that, there is a link to the article I linked above first: "What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe?" Which is in the FAQ section linked under "our beliefs" above. Some examples of questions with their own articles in that section are:

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Jesus? (Consider why faith in Jesus is essential for true Christians.)
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe That They Have the One True Religion? (Did Jesus say there are many roads leading to salvation?)
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Feel That They Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved? (The Bible explains who have the opportunity for salvation.)
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Tolerant of Other Religions? (Learn how tolerance identifies true Christians.)
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Creationism? (Did you know that some creationist ideas actually conflict with the Bible?)
How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses View Science? (Are their beliefs compatible with scientific findings?)
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in the Old Testament? (Are parts of the Bible outdated? Find out how Christians can benefit from relevant history and practical advice in the Hebrew Scriptures.)

And here is a big one in light of Topcraft's (and others') commentary in the thread about what the pope said about people's hearts, in particular their commentary slandering the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT):

Have Jehovah’s Witnesses Changed the Bible to Fit Their Beliefs? (Check the evidence for yourself.)

Always a good idea. Rather than taking your information from biased (second-hand) sources* with an agenda and a historical trackrecord of violent persecution of anyone speaking up about that agenda (including burning people alive), endorsing, promoting, supporting or even starting wars and military service, and spilling an ocean of blood throughout the centuries by means of close support of and cooperation with Christendom's leaders, kings and queens (crusades, Thirty Years' War, World Wars#). And possibly ending up accepting that as the truth of the matter. (*: note that both sources used by Flyersfan are from www.catholic.com) (#: see for example the article Part 21—1900 onward—Skirts Splattered With Blood from the article series "Religion’s Future in View of It’s Past", to get an idea to what extent Christendom's Churches, both Protestant and Catholic, supported both sides in the 2 World Wars of the 20th century, and to what extent they cooperated with Christendom's leaders or governments, such as the Nazis in Nazi Germany and baptized Roman Catholic, Adolf Hitler, who was never excommunicated. A little from that article below: )

... German historian Klaus Scholder explains that “by tradition German Catholicism had especially close ties with Rome.” Seeing in Nazism a bulwark against Communism, the Vatican was not averse to using its influence to strengthen Hitler’s hand. “Fundamental decisions shifted more and more to the Curia,” says Scholder, “and in fact Catholicism’s status and future in the Third Reich was finally decided almost solely in Rome.”

The part Christendom played in both world wars led to a severe loss of prestige. As the Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission explains: “Non-Christians had before their eyes . . . the evident fact that nations with a thousand years of Christian teaching behind them had failed to control their passions and had set the whole world ablaze for the satisfaction of less than admirable ambitions.”

Of course, religiously motivated wars are nothing new. But in contrast with the past when nations of different religions warred with one another, the 20th century has increasingly found nations of the same religion locked in bitter conflict. The god of nationalism has clearly been able to manipulate the gods of religion. Thus, during World War II, while Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain and the United States were killing Catholics and Protestants in Italy and Germany, Buddhists in Japan were doing the same to their Buddhist brothers in southeast Asia.

...

But what kind of religion would put government above God and offer its own members as political sacrifices on the altar of the god of war?

John 8:42-47

Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to* [Or “accept.”] my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.”

Matthew 13:13-15

That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’

I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves. (Jesus explaining the proof of discipleship, i.e. how to recognize true Christianity/Christians, at John 13:34,35)

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” ...; Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God; (Paul describing true Christians at 2 Cor 10:3-5, in accordance with the commandment in John 13:34,35)

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: FlyersFan

...

And here is a big one in light of Topcraft's (and others') commentary in the thread about what the pope said about people's hearts, in particular their commentary slandering the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT):

Have Jehovah’s Witnesses Changed the Bible to Fit Their Beliefs? (Check the evidence for yourself.)

Always a good idea. Rather than taking your information from biased (second-hand) sources* with an agenda and a historical trackrecord of violent persecution of anyone speaking up about that agenda (including burning people alive), endorsing, promoting, supporting or even starting wars and military service, and spilling an ocean of blood throughout the centuries by means of close support of and cooperation with Christendom's leaders, kings and queens (crusades, Thirty Years' War, World Wars#). And possibly ending up accepting that as the truth of the matter. (*: note that both sources used by Flyersfan are from www.catholic.com) (#: see for example the article Part 21—1900 onward—Skirts Splattered With Blood from the article series "Religion’s Future in View of It’s Past", to get an idea to what extent Christendom's Churches, both Protestant and Catholic, supported both sides in the 2 World Wars of the 20th century, and to what extent they cooperated with Christendom's leaders or governments, such as the Nazis in Nazi Germany and baptized Roman Catholic, Adolf Hitler, who was never excommunicated. ...)

More verifiable historical facts/truths concerning the subject in the 2nd footnote above (therefore not slander, not false accusations or lies, not unverifiable rumor either, but well-established history that you won't hear much about in a documentary about WW II, or on the History Channel):

URL link + title (cause you can't see that title above until you click "Watch on Youtube"):

20th CENTURY ATROCITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Remember my quotation from ... ah well, time for a repetition:

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” ...; Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God;” (2 Cor 10:3-5)

"Conscientious objection" is the legal term for refusing military service.

... Regarding Christian neutrality, the New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts: “Conscientious objection is morally indefensible.” An article in the Reformierte Presse states that a report by African Rights, a human rights organization, on the 1994 Rwandan genocide established the participation of all churches, “with the exception of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

Source: “No Part of the World”

a reply to: whereislogic

Another JW, wonderful. Welcome.

Sorry to say, the last one hasn’t done too well, I hope you do better.

Are you willing to answer any questions? The people of ATS are looking for the truth. Many questions have been asked here, but what we lack are the answers.

That’s one question, another is this. Since you love the ability of copy and paste, I’ll use that to form this question. RU doesn’t seem that he likes questions much. Especially the hard ones. You must understand I am a lapsed Catholic. If you want I can explain that for you. I want your personal understanding of some Scripture. Please try to use your own words, and keep in mind I’m just an ignorant sinner. Just like the ones Christ walked among. Make me understand. Here is the Scripture.

Revelation 22:18-19
King James Version
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Ill wait.

a reply to: Topcraft

In my mind, just an opinion really, you are hopelessly lost between Judaism and Christianity. Definitely not a Jew, definitely not a Christian

This statement caught my attention, I can tell you the JW do consider themselves to be Christians.
In fact they try to model themselves after the original first century Christians, before the apostasy took hold from organized Roman Catholicism which sent Christianity into the dark ages as Jesus predicted.

What is really interesting is that many ex-JWs that still believe what they believed when they practiced consider themselves to now only be Christians. But why, because they still believe in Jesus and all he has done for us and will do in the future, they still except him as their personal savior and believe everything he spoke about in the bible.
Like many Christians they may not be following the moral codes decreed in the bible, thus they are no longer JWs, but they still believe.
Some go agnostic or atheist; but most retain faith in God and Jesus and that at its core is Christianity.

I asked an unbiased source for information on JWs to get the Truth, as I understand quotes from the core source can be subject to questions or doubt.

ChatGPT4 or AI

The question was what do JWs believe.

Answer:

Jehovah's Witnesses have a distinct set of beliefs that differ in several key ways from mainstream Christian denominations. Here are some of their core beliefs:

God: Jehovah's Witnesses believe in one God, Jehovah, who is the Creator and Supreme Being. They reject the doctrine of the Trinity, viewing God as a singular entity rather than a triune being.

Jesus Christ: They believe Jesus is the Son of God, but not God himself. Jesus is seen as Jehovah's first creation and is identified as Michael the Archangel. He came to Earth, died as a ransom sacrifice to atone for human sins, and was resurrected as a spirit being.

Holy Spirit: Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Holy Spirit is not a person but God's active force used to accomplish his will.

Bible: They regard the Bible as the inspired and infallible word of God. Their preferred translation is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which they believe is a more accurate translation of the original texts.

Salvation: They believe that faith in Jesus Christ, adherence to God's commandments, and active participation in their religious activities are necessary for salvation. They teach that only 144,000 people will go to heaven to rule with Christ, while the rest of the righteous will live forever on a paradise Earth.

Kingdom of God: Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's Kingdom was established in heaven in 1914 and that Jesus Christ began ruling invisibly as King. They await the imminent end of the current world system at the Battle of Armageddon, after which God's Kingdom will be established on Earth.

Death and Afterlife: They believe that the dead are unconscious and do not experience any form of existence until the resurrection. They reject the concept of an immortal soul and eternal hellfire.

Worship and Practices: Jehovah's Witnesses are known for their door-to-door evangelism and distribution of literature like "The Watchtower" and "Awake!" magazines. They meet in Kingdom Halls for worship, which includes Bible study, prayer, and singing. They practice baptism by full immersion and commemorate the death of Jesus Christ annually at the Memorial of Christ's Death.

Moral and Social Issues: Jehovah's Witnesses strive to live morally upright lives and adhere to strict moral codes, including abstaining from premarital sex, homosexuality, smoking, and excessive drinking. They are also politically neutral, do not participate in military service, and avoid involvement in government and political affairs.

Blood Transfusions: They strictly refuse blood transfusions, based on their interpretation of biblical passages that prohibit the ingestion of blood.

These beliefs shape the daily lives and religious practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and set them apart from many other Christian groups.

This is Coles notes version for sure but the basics are there, I agree with what is stated.
Of coarse people will and do disagree with some of these from an ideological perspective, saying that is not what the bible teaches, and yet some other Christian religions also believe some of these points as well.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The first century followers that believed his message, were actually mostly what are called Messianic Jews, not Christians. Jews were the reason Christ came. He came as their messiah. To be one of those, you have to be a Jew. Just sayin. There were far more of them initially before it was opened up to the Gentiles. As I have said before, Christians believe what’s in the Latin Bible. Christians believe in the Trinity. That Christ is God. If that’s what you believe you are a Christian.

This is why a JW can NOT! be a Christian. That was defined 2,000 Years ago by The Latin Bible. Unless…………., you change the Bible to suit your narrative. I can’t stress that enough. They can squeak all they want, Pastor Russell and his friends manipulated the accepted Bible, till it said exactly what they wanted it to say, not what was intended. As to their motive, only they could tell you. I can only speculate.

They would be far better off to stick to just calling them self’s JW’s. They can still like what Christ said, and value it highly. I have no problem with that. What they should be called is,“Cafeteria Christians“. Picking and choosing what they like from the Bible. Little of this, little of that, oh oh, we better toss that part. The only reason i can think of, was to establish some weird kind of credibility in the Christian community. It doesn’t work, and if it wasn’t so sad and dangerous spiritually, it would be laughable.

Edit: Christians also must refrain from eating blood it’s in the New Testament, and it’s forbidden. JW take it too far with the transfusion thing. In the first Century they didn’t know about transfusions used to save life. This is related to the only dietary restrictions in the New Testament that I know of, even that’s tied in to idol worship. Can’t eat the meat of strangled animals either. Pagans were fond of sacrificing animals by various means, drinking, and bathing in blood. We also can’t eat food that was offered to an idol. So, no barbecue for you with the remains.

a reply to: Topcraft

I have always found it interesting how some believers do not understand the basic definition of what a Christian is.

This is how a Christian is defined

A Christian is defined as an individual who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and identifies with Christianity, a monotheistic religion based on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament of the Bible......Christians are part of various denominations that differ in theology, traditions, and practices, such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, among others. Despite these differences, they share a common faith in Jesus Christ as central to their religion.

There have been hundreds of different churches and ideologies through the centuries until now, but the most basic core is pretty simple as stated in the quote above.

Telling somebody who identifies as a Christian that believes in Jesus in 2024, that they are not, is a form of human rights abuse, try that in the work place today, if you are reported to human resources, see what happens.

a reply to: Topcraft

It means that adding entire sentences to the Bible like the one found at 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is not a good idea.

KJV reads at 1 John 5:7,8: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (Dy also includes this Trinitarian passage.) However, the NWT does not include the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” (RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.)

Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.

Here are some Trinitarians admitting the same and including some more details about how Erasmus was involved in adding that Trinitarian passage to the Textus Receptus (and how consequently it ended up in the KJV):

Rev 22:19 means that taking away God's personal name (which was used approx. 7000 times in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures) and replacing it with "the LORD", "the Lord" or "God" (all of whom already have Hebrew and Greek words that look nothing like God's personal name in Hebrew, nor can God's personal name in Hebrew be honestly translated that way as if that is what God's personal name means in English after translation, nor is it an adequate substitute because of doubts concerning the most appropiate spelling in the English language, as the argument goes), is also not a good idea. In the KJV, God's name is rendered 4 times as "JEHOVAH" in English, out of the approx. 7000 times God's name is actually used in the Bible, what happened to the other thousands of times it should be in there in an honest and accurate translation? (I already described what happened and the accompanying arguments to justify that behaviour)





Thank you for the assist with Revelation 22:18,19. I hadn't brought up that subject yet in the other thread about the pope where you were expressing something akin to the arguments of what wikipedia refers to as the "King James Only movement".

It's a pretty good Bible, but it's not perfect and has been influenced by Trinitarian dogma and the desire to conflate Jehovah God with his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Both behaviours (or modus operandi) by Trinitarian Bible translators described in this comment contribute to that agenda. Both behaviours are a demonstration of ignoring the warning at Revelation 22:18,19.

As said earlier, the KJV renders God's personal name as "JEHOVAH" 4 times, yet in the other thread you said:

The KJV is the english translation from the Latin. ...

Roman Catholics brought you the Bible, like it or not. We don’t use the word Jehovah, because it’s believed to be disrespectful to call the Lord God Almighty by his name.

Keep in mind that the KJV was produced by the Church of England (a.k.a. the Anglican Church, it's adherents are called Anglicans, not Roman Catholics) at the request of King James VI. And it uses the name "JEHOVAH" 4 times (not counting the time that name is also used as part of the place Jehovah-Jireh). Nowhere in the Bible the expression "the Lord God Almighty" is used. Just like the expression "God the Son" cannot be found in the Bible. It is also not disrespectful to use God's personal name, and nowhere in the Bible is the mere use of God's personal name, in a respectful manner or to praise Him, or as used in songs to praise or glorify Him by name (such as throughout the book of Psalms, songs that were sung out loud by the Israelites), described as being disrespectful or taking up his name in vain (or using it in vain). On the contrary, on multiple occasions Jehovah God expresses His desire to have his name declared in all the earth. (Exo 9:16; Rom 9:17) So...

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18; KJV)

"And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth." (Exo 9:16; KJV)

"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." (Romans 9:17; KJV)

Exodus 3:15 (NWT):

Then God said once more to Moses:

“This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

Likewise, the American Standard Version (ASV; which is based on the KJV), the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, the Darby Bible Translation, Young's Literal Translation, Smith's Literal Translation, Peshi-tta Holy Bible Translated, and many more English Bible translations not listed on Biblehub.com, all have either "Jehovah" or "JEHOVAH" in Exodus 3:15 (a few others have "Yahweh"). (I had to add a "-" for Peshi-tta cause ATS censors the other word for "crap/poop", s-h-i-t) The KJV uses the substitute "the LORD", which is not a personal name. The Hebrew word for "lord" is not used at Exodus 3:15 in Hebrew manuscripts or textual sources. To add it, would be ignoring Rev 22:18. To take away God's personal name, would be ignoring verse 19. A double-whammy for all the thousands of times this is done in the KJV, Jerome's Latin Vulgate (and many other Latin translations), and many more Bible translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, ERV, Catholic Challoner-Douay Version, ISV, NAB, NRSV, Webster's Bible Translation, etc., to name a few that are listed on Biblehub.com; those translations that do this are much more numerous*).

*: After all, Jesus said:

“Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.” (Matthew 7:13,14)

And Paul said at Romans 10:13-15:

13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!”

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Topcraft

...
Thank you for the assist with Revelation 22:18,19. I hadn't brought up that subject yet in the other thread about the pope where you were expressing something akin to the arguments of what wikipedia refers to as the "King James Only movement".

Correction: concerning the use of God's name in the Bible (or Bible translations), I did embed one or more of those videos I used here now as well, I think (at least the one with the article "Vatican Seeks to Eliminate Use of the Divine Name", the video is entitled "you can't use his name!").

Since it's unlikely many, if any at all, will actually look at the video (which contains some evidence in the form of pictures), here is the article:

Vatican Seeks to Eliminate Use of the Divine Name

THE Catholic hierarchy is seeking to eliminate the use of the divine name in their church services. Last year, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments sent instructions on this matter to Catholic bishops’ conferences worldwide. The step was taken “by directive” of the pope.

This document, dated June 29, 2008, decries the fact that despite instructions to the contrary, “in recent years the practice has crept in of pronouncing the God of Israel’s proper name, known as the holy or divine tetragrammaton, written with four consonants of the Hebrew alphabet in the form יהוה, YHWH.” The document notes that the divine name has variously been rendered “Yahweh,” “Yahwè,” “Jahweh,” “Jahwè,” “Jave,” “Yehovah,” and so forth. * [In English, the form “Jehovah” has been widely recognized for centuries and is used in many Bible translations.] However, the Vatican directive seeks to reestablish the traditional Catholic position. That is to say, the Tetragrammaton is to be replaced by “Lord.” Moreover, in Catholic religious services, hymns, and prayers, God’s name “YHWH is neither to be used or pronounced.”

In support of this position, the Vatican’s document appeals to the “immemorial tradition” of Catholicism. The directive claims that even in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, dating to pre-Christian times, the divine name was regularly rendered Kyʹri·os, the Greek word for “Lord.” Thus, the directive insists, “Christians, too, from the beginning never pronounced the divine tetragrammaton.” This statement, however, ignores clear evidence to the contrary. Early copies of the Septuagint contained, not Kyʹri·os, but the divine name in the form יהוה. Christ’s first-century followers knew and pronounced God’s name. Jesus himself said in prayer to his Father: “I have made your name known.” (John 17:26) And in his well-known model prayer, Jesus taught us to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.”​—Matthew 6:9.

It should be the desire of all Christians to see God’s name sanctified. Vatican efforts to eliminate its use dishonor Jehovah, the one who said: “This is my name for all time; by this name I shall be invoked for all generations to come.”​—Exodus 3:15, The Jerusalem Bible.

...

[Picture on page 30]

A fragment of the “Septuagint” dating from the first century C.E. The divine name, represented by the four Hebrew letters commonly transliterated YHWH, is circled

See video for that picture, since it's important evidence for making a personal observation.

Education is the imparting or acquisition of knowledge and skill. Education is accomplished through (1) explanation and repetition; (2) discipline, training administered in love (Pr 1:7; Heb 12:5, 6); (3) personal observation (Ps 19:1-3; Ec 1:12-14); (4) reproof and rebuke (Ps 141:5; Pr 9:8; 17:10).

Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: Topcraft

The JW is a cult; undeniable fact. ...by shoving their religion down everybodys' throat.

Just like evangelical christianity here in the US. Those morons are trying to instill their beliefs regarding abortion, same sex marriage, transgender rights, and other issues into US law to create their own version of Sharia Law in the US. (Sharia means law based on religious teachings or texts.)

a reply to: liberalskeptic

Could you explain to me how talking about one's religion*, where someone else does not need to either read or listen to it (the most usual occurance in practice, in my country and from my experience about 90-95% of the time, on ATS possibly a little more than that), is the equivalent of "shoving their religion down everybody's throat"? (quoting nugget1, but it's unlikely I will get an honest answer that also makes sense from him or her; perhaps you're more willing to acknowledge that it's not even close to that description) *: or expressing one's beliefs/views/opinions, or quoting from the Bible about topics such as God, God's Kingdom or other biblical subjects such as regarding the behaviour and nature of mankind, or advice on how to better oneself or resist certain influences or influential figures in this world, see examples further below.

It's not like Jehovah's Witnesses are "trying to instill their beliefs regarding abortion, same sex marriage, transgender rights, and other issues into US law". Like some other religions do. Actually, their articles point out what is wrong with that behaviour (for a Christian, usually when the topic of Christians staying out of politics, i.e. remaining politically neutral, comes up).

When the entertainment media or industry, or politicians or political commentators (for example on CNN) are promoting their views/beliefs/opinions (all synonyms) concerning abortion, same sex marriage, transgender rights and the tenets of the religion of scientism (and as part of the effort to try "to instill" these views/beliefs/opinions "into US law", at least make more people want that to garner votes for leftwing or liberal political parties such as the Democratic Party), they are not doing anything that you would have a similar issue with as what you described concerning the behaviour of "evangelical christianity"?

If that is so, perhaps you may want to have another look at my earlier quotation of 2 Timothy 4:3,4 why that may be so. Or you know what, time for a repetition:

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4) (ever heard of the term "echo chamber"? It is defined as "an environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered." By Oxford Languages, as accessed via google. They should have phrased that as "not considered as having any merit". Cause I'm sure some are at least mentioned in such echo chambers, only to argue against their merit. Someone could interpret that as they are being "considered".)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“And stop being molded by this system of things,* [ Or “this age.”] but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

Double Standard on Life

● “I am appalled at the schizophrenic [double-standard] thinking of American physicians,” wrote Leroy Howell, M.D., in a letter to “American Medical News.” Howell explained that, in one recent issue, the magazine had reported on the American Medical Association Judicial Council’s position “that it is unethical for physicians to give or order lethal injections for murderers” as a means of capital punishment. Yet he noted that the very next issue of “American Medical News” reported that “a director of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was upset because the federal government would no longer pay for [aborting] babies who had never done anything wrong to anyone.”

Similarly another doctor wrote about the medical complaints over government refusal to pay for some abortions. Apparently such medical officials feel that mothers have a “right” to do away with their unborn babies. But, asked the physician, “does proclaiming something to be a right mean that it must be subsidized by government? I have a right to buy a house. Does this also mean the house should be paid for by the government? I don’t think so.” Yet, as noted above, the same medical men who have no qualms over accepting government payments to destroy millions of unborn babies often oppose, on so-called moral grounds, the execution of a few murderers. An observer might even be led to believe that the amount of monetary return has become a factor in deciding whether destroying life is moral or not.​—Rom. 13:8-10.

Source: Insight on the News (1980)

Double standards, a common occurance among mankind. One runs into it again and again, regarding a variety of subjects or opinions and feelings or attitudes.

Compare my response to Topcraft about Revelation 22:18,19 concerning the KJV and other translations taking away, or out, God's personal name from his own Word, the Bible, and replacing it with a noun that isn't a personal name (thousands of times). And how those who prefer such translations argue against the NWT (which doesn't do that), contrasting it with the KJV or such translations who de replace God's personal name with a noun that isn't a personal name. Sometimes even trying to argue that the translators of the NWT did exactly that which Revelation 22:18,19 told them not to do, as they argue in favor of translations that actually demonstrate exactly what's described at Rev 22:18,19. In the style described at Isaiah 5:20,21:

“Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!”

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You have no idea what the description of a Christian is because you’re preaching, and not listening. All you accomplished with your post, is to annoy me. All those ideologies you mentioned claim the same Bible as inspiration including yours. The Latin Bible. That’s what we all use, the source for everyone, the inspired one. Compare your translation to it. The NWT will not match. The KJV will match word for word. You never tried that did you. If you want the truth try it.

I don’t care what you identify as, call yourself a horse or an elephant if you want. I won’t agree with you because it’s not the T R U T H !!! Now it’s human rights abuse to tell the truth? unfreeking believable. Now I’ve heard everything.

I’ve made this my workplace as of late, and I have no problems giving you both the numbers of my boss, and HR. First one is 1-800 ChristisGod, not sure about HR, I’ll have to get back to you on that.

Remember the title of the this thread? I chose it because it will trip search engines. My words and yours will be called up over and over as long as someone looks up the words,“ The Truth About The Jehova Witness ”. This thread is going to magically appear. I wonder how long it will float around the internet. ATS can disappear, but the website wilI be archived somewhere. I have a friend in high places, that will make sure the words will get to anyone who needs them.

I wish you the very best, I really do. You and your fellows have helped me tremendously and I thank you for it. If you ever get kicked out of JW, call on my boss, he’s always hiring, the wages are excellent, but you only get paid when you retire.

To the rest of you, thanks for your contributions, couldn’t have done what I intended without you. I’m done here, I have said all that I have to say, and have accomplished exactly what I set out to do.

If you feel the need, keep going. Lots of unanswered questions left to get into if you wish. Im done responding to the JW I’m afraid, that will cheer them up a bit. I will check back. Bye, and once again thank you all………..I need to prepare for my next thread, “The Truth About The Roman Catholic Church”. See you there.

whereislogic . . . are you keeping track of your time?

a reply to: Topcraft

That’s what we all use, the source for everyone, the inspired one. Compare your translation to it. The NWT will not match. The KJV will match word for word. You never tried that did you. If you want the truth try it.

The bible students started out producing the Watchtower in 1879 the basis for scripture was the KJV so they pulled all their beliefs from the KJV until 1961, when they decided to make a bible that didn't sound so Shakespearian, easier to understand updated English.
I myself quote from numerous bibles from biblehub which doesn't even list the NWT, for example this one

Good scripture for you to ponder

Lately I like the Amplified bible.