Simon

Many ex-jw's claim to be "free" of the JW organisation now that they have been "enlightened". Which is fine if that works for them.

But has anyone noticed this poetic irony: the very ones who claim to be "free" spend more time trawling through JW literature to comment on here and on message boards than they ever did studying it when they were JW's?

So I have seen questions about JW's posted here, for instance one about JW's using "ad hominem" attacks on individuals. Then the very poster of that question called a jw "fat and ugly" in another comment.

I seen questions about JW's supposedly hating other religions, only then to see just today, a couple of questions that asked if JW's were similar to nazi's and whether JW's ride the shot bus to conventions.

Now ignoring the political incorrectness - I can see the juvenile humour in the second of those last two questions, but for the fact that if JW's posted similar comments they are accused of horrendous, anti-christian behaviour. Double standards?

As far as the comments on Y!A is concerned, it seems when someone leaves the JW's they lose their personal moral compass and yet hypocritically attack JW morals.

Has anyone else noticed this?

A few days ago I posted this question:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak...

I was curious about the motives of ex-jw's and how they justify hatred towards a religion that they are no longer part of.

Some of the answers were sincere. There are one or two ex-jw's who have found religious believes away from the Jehovah's Witnesses and I respect their sincere attempts to justify their new beliefs.

But most it seems have the attitude "I dont care what you do, or where you go, just dont have anything to do with JW's".

I did qualify the question with "if you are an ex-jw who still believes in God", and yet none could offer a path that they felt was correct. Jesus made it clear people would be on one of two roads, the broad and spacious or the narrow and cramped.

I also find it interesting that the question was reported and deleted and on appeal was restored.

I can only assume that some of the answers caused embarrassment to the ex-jw community on here as they ranged from those who feel jw's are here for their personal amusement, their "puppet show". To the more extreme "kill yourself and do the world a favour", and a hope that I burn in hell.

I concede some are genuinely sincere and feel JW's are in a cult (a point I would dispute), but I also get the sense that most show no caring concern, but despise, ridicule and generally hate JW beliefs and those that defend them. What are your thoughts?

I see alot of ex-jw's purporting to post here for noble philanthropic reasons, out of a sincere desire to help jehovahs witnesses break free.

Yet they never offer jw's an alternative. Its like they are saying "do anything you like, as long as its not jehovahs witnesses". Is this because every religion faces similar issues, and almost all of the accusations leveled against jw's could be leveled at the alternative choices?

Would a so called christian ex-jw be happy if a jw took their comments and decided to abandon any kind of faith in jesus?

Surely such attitudes reveal not a sincere care for individual jw's , but a hatred for the organisation? Do ex-jw's simply hate the jw organisation and want to see it fail and have little regard for its members? I think this is born out in the fact they often refer to individual jw's in insulting terms, such as "brain-dead", "unintelligent", "stupid", "brainwashed".

So the question: if you are a ex-jw who still believes in God, rather than being negative about jw's why dont you promote the positives of your new faith and allow that to stand on its merits?

I see allot of trinitarians on here who claim the title "christianity" for themselves. And state that any religious group that believes in Jesus as our ransom and saviour, but does not believe in the trinity doctrine cannot claim to be christian.

Can anyone provide secular encyclopedic or dictionary definitions that prove that "Christianity" is solely the reserve of those that believe the trinity doctrine? That Christianity only ever implies belief in the trinity?

Or is it fair to say that a person can claim to be Christian but not believe in the trinity doctrine?

NIV

Hebrews 5:8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered

I get the whole idea you promote about the 3 being separate but one at the same time. But the 3 are co-equal are they not? Or is there a hierarchy within the trinity itself?

Because here we are told that the son "learned", surely God has nothing to learn? And assuming God could learn something, when would he learn "obedience"? Who is God obedient to?

Or is God the Son obedient to God the Father and God the Holy Ghost? Is there hierarchy?

If so, why did they decide to stop using it, and now proactively dissuade its priests from mentioning it?

I would suggest the account of jesus being tempted by the devil casts considerable doubt on the trinity doctrine, and here is why:

1) if jesus is god, when the devil asked jesus for an act of worship, why did jesus direct all worship to god? Why did he not say "it is me alone you should worship"?

2) if jesus is god why did the devil say angels would save jesus if he threw himself off a battlement? Surely if jesus was god he could save himself? Does God need to rely on his angels to save him?

3) if jesus is god why did he choose to quote from the hebrew scriptures in each of his replies? Why did he not simply use his authority as god the son to rebuke satan?

4) and finally if jesus is god, why did the devil try to tempt him in the first place? If jesus is god surely the devil would know its a pointless exercise trying to corrupt god himself?

Im wondering if I have lost perspective a little on this one, so I thought I would poll peoples opinion.

An ex-JW who is now a member of the Calvary Chapel posted a question with this title:

"Why do some people try to destroy the faith of others?"

I found this a little odd as I would suggest around 80% of her questions on here and probably 90% of her answers relate to her hatred for Jehovah's Witnesses and how she feels they are not approved by God and should be stopped at all costs.

In addition, in some of her questions she draws attention to the issues JW's have had with child abuse cases and has suggested the law suits that have been brought show they are not approved by Jesus. When I pointed out that the leaders of her new church - The Calvary Chapel - are currently facing law suits relating to known child abusers among their ministers, she blocked me.

Of course if she doesn't like my answers she has every right to block me, I may personally view that as hypocritical but that's not my question.

Based on her own question about people destroying the faith of others and her attacks on the faith of JW's and her theological discrediting of JW's because of lawsuits relating to child abuse cases when her own church is facing law suits, is this hypocrisy?

I've seen a few answers on here saying that "Jehovah" is not Gods name. The reasons given is that in the original hebrew Gods name is YHWH, and that there is no letter 'J' in ancient hebrew.

I think we can all agree that the exact pronunciation of Gods name has been lost, but "Jehovah" the most widely accepted in English.

The lost pronunciation and lack of 'J' would also apply to Jesus name. No one knows for certain how Gods sons name was pronounced and "Jesus" is the english version of the best guess at the pronunciation of his name. So if you reject Jehovah as Gods name why do you not reject Jesus as his sons name?

Atheists like Dawkins try to dumb down the idea of intelligent design and build up the idea of ... well... nothing.

Apparently its too complicated to reason that "something" might have started the universe, its much easier to suggest nothing started the universe.

Am I the only person that finds this reasoning a little illogical?

I see a number of ex-jw's who post questions starting with the line: "Jehovah's Witnesses:"

This implies they are looking for sincere answers from..... Jehovah's Witnesses.

The odd thing is, any JW that they decide has disagreed with their agenda driven questions, some of them choose to block. (you know who you are).

They will use the excuse that JW's report (notwithstanding the fact that if someone chooses to report and it is upheld, then surely that is because they ARE breaking the community rules).or spam etc. This is not always the case. I have been blocked by a number of ex-JW simply because they do not like the fact that I counter their agenda driven arguments. I have never spammed, I have never reported anyone. I simply present counter arguments to their claims.

So I have to ask:

If you are asking sincere questions of JW's, why block the very people you claiim to want to answer your questions?

Is it not true that your questions are not sincere in that you are not looking for answers, rather you are looking to make statements which you do not wish to be refuted?

(now watch them go off topic rather than deal with the specifics of my questions (something they love to accuse JW's of doing)

I saw a user today ask a question of another christian group using the boston tragedy as an emotional ploy to try and undermine their doctrine. I should stress he was not blaming them for the tragedy. But he hates this religious group and felt that using the tragedy would serve his ends.

My question: is it ok to use such a tragic event to promote a personal agenda against others?

I've seen a number of people claim on here that Jesus did not do a door to door ministry that he only preached in public places. How would you explain the following verses?

Matthew 10:11-14

King James Version (KJV)

11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.

12 And when ye COME INTO A HOUSE, salute it.

13 And if the HOUSE be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that HOUSE or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Acts 5:42

King James Version (KJV)

42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

Acts 20:20 KJV

20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house,

Interesting what one bible commentator says on the 5:42 verse:

R. C. H. Lenski, in his work The Interpretation of The Acts of the Apostles, Minneapolis (1961), made the following comment on Ac 5:42: “Never for a moment did the apostles cease their blessed work. ‘Every day’ they continued, and this openly ‘in the Temple’ where the Sanhedrin and the Temple police could see and hear them, and, of course, also κατ’ οἴκον, which is distributive, ‘from house to house,’ and not merely adverbial, ‘at home.’ ”

Jesus and his disciples preached not just in the synagogues and public places he preached in peoples personal homes too. The first century christians preached publicly and in distributively in peoples homes.

So why don't all Christians follow Jesus and the first century congregation's example in this regard?

Trinitarians today interpret scripture to suggest a trinity, but if that is true, why was it not taught by first century Christan's? why if it is so obviously a bible teaching was it not taught in Christan churches until nearly 500 years after Jesus death?

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

Can anyone explain how for the first 500 years of christian history, no one believed or widely taught the trinity doctrine?

I thought I should re-post my question because apparently getting Professor Flews christian name wrong invalidated my entire question among some "free thinkers".... :/

I hear so many atheists saying how stupid it is to believe in God. That there is no evidence. That any rational thinking person would be an atheist.

So when eminent atheist philosopher , oxford graduate and professor of philosophy Anthony Flew converted from atheist to believing in a God, not because of an epiphany, or because "he had found jesus" or any other emotional response, but because he had stuck to his life long aim to "follow the evidence" - scientific evidence that a biogensis is impossible, would you concede that atheism might not be quite as infallible as you would have people believe?

Oh and don't follow the crowd of patronising atheists like Dawkins who suggested Flew was senile (and interestingly who Flew said had mislead him in the past), or that he was duped into writing his 2007 book "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" by Roy Varghese . These are weak arguments. Flew restated a number of times both in print and in interview his change from atheism to a belief in God. He refuted the claims that Varghese had written the book, and restated that Varghese had merely helped him to write the book and was proud of its content.

And for those who want to clutch at straws and suggest his change was due to the fact he eventually died of dementia, this had nothing to do with his ability to reason. Dementia affects memory, attention, language, and problem solving. Clearly a man who spent 6 years lecturing, being interviewed, writing papers and books and refuting criticism of his change of mind using scientific study and philosophical reasoning did not display these symptoms.

Do not stoop so low as to reducing a brilliant mind to being a mad old fool simply because it does not suit your argument.

And yes, Flew never converted to Christianity, but he did believe that there is a God who is the designer of life and our universe. Something that most atheists say there is zero evidence for.

I saw earlier a question about extra terrestrials. Many atheist respondents said there could well be alien life out there.

we have zero proof of alien life in outer space, nothing, zip, nada. And yet many feel it could be possible.

And yet as soon as a christian gives alien life the title "God" and "angels", suddenly it becomes implausible, ridiculous, fairy tale nonsense, and christains are ridiculed for entertaining such an idea you claim they have no proof of.

Be honest, if you do believe in the possibility of alien life, is that not just a little hypocritical?

Can anyone shed any light as to why this user ask questions of jehovahs witnesses but she blocks them to prevent any from answering her questions?

Is she asking sincere questions? Or working to a personal agenda and simply making statements that she does not want to be refuted?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the trinity suggests that God, the Son and the Holy Ghost are part of the same thing, and equal in all things.

Can anyone explain Acts 7:55 (NIV)

55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

Stephen has a vision of heaven. If they are all equal. Why is Jesus not on a throne with God? (he is at the right hand of God a recognise position of service in bible times) and where is the Holy Ghost in this vision of heaven? Is the Holy Ghost not equal enough to be included in this particular vision?

Im seeing allot of hatred between religious and non-religious people on here.

Without saying "they disrespected me first" or "they had it coming to them for being so stupid", lets put belief or non-belief to one side. In the light of these community guidelines how do you justify your lack of respect for other peoples views?

"Be courteous. Remember we’re a diverse community of people with diverse opinions. Everyone wants to be treated with respect and showing respect to others makes the community better for all members."

"Venting, ranting or using hate speech. Yahoo! Answers isn't a soapbox to vent personal frustrations or rant about issues. We are a community of people with diverse beliefs, opinions, and backgrounds, so please be respectful and keep hateful and incendiary comments off Yahoo! Answers."

"Being mean or obscene. Because kids as young as 13 may participate in Yahoo! Answers, sexually explicit and vulgar language and images are not welcome on the site. Also not welcome are belligerence, insults, slurs and generally objectionable speech. If you wouldn't say it in public, don't post it on Answers."