Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

@neologist,

igm wrote:

neologist wrote:

During Hitler's Germany, many risked death for refusing to salute Hitler. Some were youths. During wartime and civil strife, many young people of differing religions put their lives on the line in order to aid their neighbors. So, the decision to give one's life for religious reasons is nothing new. Admittedly, to some it is tragic; to others, even non JWs, it is laudable.

It is laudable to sometimes die standing up to obvious evil e.g. Hitler. It is not laudable to allow the possibility of mothers and children's deaths when there is no need because transfusions are not mentioned in the bible and the people who run the JW organization have imposed this on the 'flock'. To save life they could have said that transfusions were not mentioned in the bible and not tried to infer what isn't there.

Follow the words of a book but don't infer something that if wrong will cost lives and bring your religion into disrepute... is what you should tell those in charge of you... will you? No, I am certain that you will not which leaves you open to the charge of having been brainwashed by those untouchable men that run your organization.

neologist wrote:

I do not think you are as devoted to veracity as you would have us believe.
Speaking of religious hypocrisy , tell me how Buddhists were able to massacre their brothers in Cambodia.

I think you've got the wrong country but let's say for the sake of argument you are correct about the country and the alleged massacre. This is my reply:

According to the JW leaders.. transfusions are a sin because it can be inferred (I can't see how but...) that the bible said so and the bible is the word of God. Therefore women and children die following your leaders' inference that transfusions which don't appear in the Bible are nevertheless a sin worth avoiding by choosing death, even though it doesn't say so in the Bible and therefore is not explicitly God's word.

If a Buddhist kills then it cannot be inferred from the Buddha's teaching; is not inferred from the Buddha's teachings by Buddhist teachers using the Buddha's teachings as a reference. If someone kills someone else it won't be because it explicitly or implicitly says so in the Buddha's teachings, unlike your leaders, who for no reason have inferred that transfusions, although not in the Bible or taught as wrong by Jesus or God, are a sin that should be avoided by dying rather than deliberately committing.

It is not the same thing and you know it. Children and mothers die needlessly because of your leaders' inaccurate inference of the meaning of words in a book; that book is the JW version of the Bible.

2 Replies

@igm,

As usual.. I've amended the above post... sorry folks!

1 Reply

@igm,

Has anyone told you lately that you have a very good way of explaining your view points? Wink

Ps don't worry about the changes your ideas are well thought out regardless.

0 Replies

@igm,

There is no comparison between those willing to die for their beliefs as opposed to those willing to kill fellow believers in order to save their own skins. You say the Cambodian participants were not following Buddha. Perhaps. Neither were the Catholics who killed Catholics and the Protestants who killed Protestants during WWII, Rwanda, and points in between. How about Muslims willing to kill Muslims? You've picked your issue based on an insane desire to discredit the one religion least guilty of baseless killing in our modern era. Ever wonder why? When the blood tally is calculated, what will be your score?

3 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

There is no comparison between those willing to die for their beliefs as opposed to those willing to kill fellow believers in order to save their own skins.

Are you talking about suicide bombers?

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

You've picked your issue based on an insane desire to discredit the one religion least guilty of baseless killing in our modern era.

Was he talking about Jainism? Do Jehovah witnesses fight in wars?

0 Replies

@neologist,

Have you given up defending your leaders' inference about transfusions being a sin? Are you saying that because people fail to practice a religion correctly that they are the same as those who die by correctly blindly following their JW leaders?

If you can't defend it then why follow them? If this teaching is wrong then your leaders could be wrong about all their critical inferences about the bible... couldn't they?

When you call on people you should tell them that this is what they may have to do if they become JW's i.e. die instead of having a deliberate transfusion... honesty is the best policy... don't you think?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Have you given up defending your leaders' inference about transfusions being a sin? Are you saying that because people fail to practice a religion correctly that they are the same as those who die by correctly blindly following their JW leaders?

Why do you refer to my 'leaders'. It is obvious you don't know diddly about how we are organized.

igm wrote:

If you can't defend it then why follow them? If this teaching is wrong then your leaders could be wrong about all their critical inferences about the bible... couldn't they?

Not a matter of defending 'leaders'; it is a matter of defending the Bible. You don't believe the Bible; so my defense is meaningless to you. A good reason for me to end our conversation on this subject.

igm wrote:

When you call on people you should tell them that this is what they may have to do if they become JW's i.e. die instead of having a deliberate transfusion... honesty is the best policy... don't you think?

No one who does not understand the Bible's teaching on blood would qualify to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

2 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

. It is obvious you don't know diddly about how we are organized.

Would you pleas explain the JW structure to us?

Quote:

No one who does not understand the Bible's teaching on blood would qualify to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Would you consider yourself to an elder of the hall?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Would you pleas explain the JW structure to us?

Ask the next one who knocks on your door.

reasoning logic wrote:

Would you consider yourself to an elder of the hall?

No.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Would you consider yourself to be an elder of the hall?

No.

Why not?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

My Obersvations :

IGM - there is nothing wrong with answering Setanta's question regarding 'what is enlightenment' (does it really matter if it causes an argument - look at the argument caused by not answering it).

Granted one of the issues is that it seems to be a state/concept that can't be explained accurately, but that can be added as a qualification. Due to that, any person approaching a definition of enlightenment from a combative point of view will be able to attack from multiple angles while missing the central theme...so I can understand not wishing to answer it.

So in the end, while the accusation of evasion is true - I think there are valid reasons for evading the question, just as there are valid reasons for answering.

------------------------------

Neo - I have no issue with your interpretation of Adam and Eve's story - there are certainly other ways to interpret it than Franks version.

I don't agree with not accepting blood transfusions, and it makes me sad when a person needlessly dies, especially a child who doesn't get an informed choice due to the parents beliefs.

In a world where religious beliefs are actually not known (but taken on faith), it surprises me that this particular belief is held on to so dearly, when, with God having given us a conscience - it doesn't fail any normal conscience test.

Then again, neither did the apple - but the reality is, that story triggered awareness of good & evil...while we are already given the ability to discern - hence the paragraph directly above.

.................
To me, the last several pages reflects what I said in my only previous post in this thread.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

My Obersvations :

IGM - there is nothing wrong with answering Setanta's question regarding 'what is enlightenment' (does it really matter if it causes an argument - look at the argument caused by not answering it).

Granted one of the issues is that it seems to be a state/concept that can't be explained accurately, but that can be added as a qualification. Due to that, any person approaching a definition of enlightenment from a combative point of view will be able to attack from multiple angles while missing the central theme...so I can understand not wishing to answer it.

So in the end, while the accusation of evasion is true - I think there are valid reasons for evading the question, just as there are valid reasons for answering.

Vikorr, I mostly agree with your observations... but I did say this in reply to setanta:

igm wrote:

Where have I said that enlightenment has nothing to do with Buddhism? The Buddha said that enlightenment puts and end to suffering.

http://able2know.org/topic/220026-7#post-5413014

And this to timur:

igm wrote:

timur wrote:

But if your premise is that I don't know what enlightenment means why do you want discuss buddhism?

It is not my premise show me a quote where I've said it is? One of the goals is to understand what the Buddha meant by the term.

The Buddha said, 'I teach only one thing, suffering and how to put an end to it', everything else was an explanation of how to do it.

http://able2know.org/topic/220026-7#post-5413007

After I posted those responses both timur and setanta failed to reply at all to me; I have to conclude they may have been satisfied by my final replies to them.

2 Replies

@igm,

Added links into my previous post.

0 Replies

@igm,

I remember reading them.

I rather like Victor Frankl's take on it (he was a Jew interred in one of the German death camps) 'in the end they could take everything away from us but the one remaining human freedom - to choose the attitude with which we would face our lot'

...that's not the exact wording, but the gist of it.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

My Obersvations :

Neo - I have no issue with your interpretation of Adam and Eve's story - there are certainly other ways to interpret it than Franks version.

I'd be interested in hearing another interpretation of the fact that one of the essential features of the story is that Adam and Eve do not know the difference between right and wrong...between good and evil...at the time they disobey.

THEY SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH DISOBEYING, because that knowledge was denied them by the god.

And even if they did know...they disobeyed one time...and suffered (along with all the rest of humanity) the most severe punishment imaginable.

It is like a child disobeying a parent one time...and being chopped to pieces with an axe for doing so. And in that analogy...it would be like a parent leaving a kid at home alone with a live handgrenade on the floor in the center of a room...putting the kid in the room...and telling it "Oh, do not play with that thing on the floor in the center of the room." And then allow other kids to be able to taunt their kid into doing so.

The story obviously was an incredibly poor attempt to explain something by a rather incompetent ancient Hebrew. It is pathetic...and attempts to justify it are as absurd as it is.

But I would be interested in your other interpretations, Vikorr.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I think perhaps Frank, that you are taking a rather hardline interpretation of the story. It is quite obvious that they knew they were not allowed to eat of the fruit. It's also obvious that they knew there would be consequences for doing so.

That consequence was leaving the Garden of Eden, and therefore aging and dying. That is not even comparable to your analogy of being chopped to pieces with an axe for doing so, which is rather sensationalist for this story. And being innocent isn't quite the same as being a child.

There are better stories in the Bible for those sort of analogies - like when God sent a She bear to rip apart the children that were calling Elijah an 'old baldy'. To my way of thinking, that was plain evil.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Why do you refer to my 'leaders'. It is obvious you don't know diddly about how we are organized.

I disagree. The internet has many references.

neologist wrote:

Not a matter of defending 'leaders'; it is a matter of defending the Bible.

I disagree, you're defending an inference by those in charge of the organization, they cannot be questioned by you because of the sin of apostasy in the JW religion.

neologist wrote:

You don't believe the Bible; so my defense is meaningless to you.

A good reason for me to end our conversation on this subject.

I disagree that a meaningful defence would be meaningless.

I agree to end our conversation if you feel your case has be proven or unproven.

2 Replies

@igm,

References in my last post are backed by these articles:

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/apostates.php

Apostates

"An apostate is literally someone who "turns aside". Hence, anyone who leaves their religion of birth is by definition an apostate. The Watchtower Society defines an apostate as anyone that teaches contrary to Watchtower teachings.

"Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates." Pay Attention to Yourself and to All the Flock p.94

However, when describing Apostates as assisting Satan, being unworthy of a resurrection, to be avoided, loathed and hated, it specifically refers to former Witnesses that speak out against the Watchtower Society or its doctrine."

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses#Suppression_of_free_speech_and_thought

Suppression of free speech and thought

"Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, without consultation with other members.[6] The religion does not tolerate dissidence about doctrines and practices;[140][304][305][306] members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings are shunned.[225] Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as "God's organization".[306][307][308][309] It also warns members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil"[310][311] and would "cause division".[312] Those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as "apostates" and "mentally diseased".[313][314][315]

Former members Heather and Gary Botting compare the cultural paradigms of the religion to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four,[316] and Alan Rogerson describes the religion's leadership as totalitarian.[317] Other critics charge that by disparaging individual decision-making, the Watch Tower Society cultivates a system of unquestioning obedience[146][318] in which Witnesses abrogate all responsibility and rights over their personal lives.[319][320] Critics also accuse the Watch Tower Society of exercising "intellectual dominance" over Witnesses,[321] controlling information[225][322][323] and creating "mental isolation",[324] which former Governing Body member Raymond Franz argued were all elements of mind control.[324]

Watch Tower Society publications state that consensus of faith aids unity,[325] and deny that unity restricts individuality or imagination.[325]"

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I think perhaps Frank, that you are taking a rather hardline interpretation of the story. It is quite obvious that they knew they were not allowed to eat of the fruit. It's also obvious that they knew there would be consequences for doing so.

The story as I read it is about a couple who are very forcefully denied knowledge of what is right and wrong...of what is good and what is evil. Any other interpretation is an absurdity. The very point of the story of them being refused permission to eat that fruit...was so that they would not gain the knowledge of good and evil.

Quote:

That consequence was leaving the Garden of Eden, and therefore aging and dying. That is not even comparable to your analogy of being chopped to pieces with an axe for doing so, which is rather sensationalist for this story. And being innocent isn't quite the same as being a child.

They...and all of humanity, according to this absurd story, were punished for doing something they did not know was wrong...with pain, suffering, and death. The child being axed to death is actually much less severe.

Quote:

There are better stories in the Bible for those sort of analogies - like when God sent a She bear to rip apart the children that were calling Elijah an 'old baldy'. To my way of thinking, that was plain evil.

The stories seem to me to be absurd, but I have no problem with the people who take them as gospel (!).

The god pictured in the Bible...if he were a human today...would be in lock-up more severe than that required for Hannibal Lecter, because the god of the Bible is much more evil in my opinion.

1 Reply

Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know