-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
to the religious people on here
- Thread starter norinrad21
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure it does go both ways, but it shouldn't on this board. I'm sorry if you get shit from believers but there are normal Christians too you know. You don't see us making posts belittling your lifestyle, and in the case of homosexuality we'd even be banned for it. Explain why gays are protected in the TOS but not religion.
Religion is not going to make you feel good man; it's going to make you feel bad because it's designed that way. It's going to make you feel guilty that you still (as bad as the shape you're in now even) have more than people in other countries, and it will make you feel guilty about sex, your relationships and other things in life. Sure those into religion always look happy but that's just a guise. Ever notice how every four or five months the Pope criticizes people and reminds them of their duties? He makes them feel guilty each and every time because that is how religion works. I'm not quite sure how it works with other religions.
I make myself happy by thinking of those in other countries who are in worse situations and then see how much better I have it than them.
I make myself happy by thinking of those in other countries who are in worse situations and then see how much better I have it than them.
Mr. E. Yis
Banned
El Papa said:
Worst place to start. The Calvary Chapel is a very extremist Protestant "club" (I wouldn't classify it as a religion), who take the bible literally, and who like to convert anyone in distress (aka norinrad21). Believe me- sadly I have many family members already in it.
If you get in it, get ready for a lifetime of HEAVY guilt, self-denial, and unhappiness.
Boomer, I didn't write the TOS, so I'm not going to even try to explain the motivations of the people who wrote it. If you have a problem with the TOS, I would strongly urge you to take that discussion to PM, since it's QUITE clear that discussing the terms of service on the board is verboten...but I suggest you look for a more sympathetic mod, since I am not going to be of any help to you. I think this is a non-issue, and that you need to grow thicker skin. Since Christians are supposed to proselyze their faith, it stands to reason that you need to deal with literal or metaphoric slammed doors from people who reject what you have to offer.Boomer said:
For everyone else -- this discussion is getting WAY out of hand. Norinrad21 needs religious advice, or at the very least recipes for ramen and job offers. Keep it on topic, please.
SlickWilly223
Time ta STEP IT UP
I'm religious. As a Roman-Catholic I find myself praying everynight.
I don't go to church though. I know the times are a'changin', but I'm not too keen on the way MY local church operates. Even though one of the priests that attends mass there is probably the nicest person I've ever met, I can't work myself to go to mass anymore. On top of all that, there's just so many phony people who go. I know that shouldn't stop me from going to church, but it just irritates me. So that's why I don't go to church.
That said I don't think religion will magically help you improve life... it's something that you have to take seriously, and you can't just jump right into it.
I don't go to church though. I know the times are a'changin', but I'm not too keen on the way MY local church operates. Even though one of the priests that attends mass there is probably the nicest person I've ever met, I can't work myself to go to mass anymore. On top of all that, there's just so many phony people who go. I know that shouldn't stop me from going to church, but it just irritates me. So that's why I don't go to church.
That said I don't think religion will magically help you improve life... it's something that you have to take seriously, and you can't just jump right into it.
Kuroyume said:
Yes, because a man's life is not supposed to have any duties, responsibilities, or rules-- the seeking of pleasure for oneself should be the highest law, unencumbered by all those other obligations. Right. What is this, hedonism redux? Religious or not, that's a pretty shallow viewpoint. I'm not Catholic (well, I am, but I don't adhere to it any more), but I would imagine that the Pope "criticizes" people for the very same reason you-- a man of far less estimable station-- do; that is, that he feels that there are things wrong with what people are doing, and desires to effect change through his admonitions. You are doing the very same thing in this thread-- don't be upset just because you don't command quite the audience that the Pope does.
What's good for the goose and all...As for duties, well, in a religious schema, man is beholden to God; as such, there are necessary duties, as of a subordinate to his superior (no matter how much mutual care/love the persons involved exhibit). We see this in every sort of human relationship, yet you expect a relationship with God-- ideally, the most intimate of relationships-- to be absent this feature? Very shallow thinking, that. Whether you believe God to exist or not is a different matter entirely-- I am speaking here of certain features of a relationship with God, made explicit by religion (irrespective of the particulars of the religion), which you are erroneously and baselessly heaping scorn upon.
It's a childish mindset to have. One can be an atheist without resorting to vapid, unsubstantiated arguments (e.g., "because worship has features A, B, and C as part of its praxis, it must be teh wrong"). Look at -jinx- : always fair, despite his atheism (or agnosticism, as it may be). You, not so. Do some thinking.
Also, not to comment too much on the whole "consistency" issue, but I can see Boomer's point. The majority of the posts herein of an anti-Christian bent have merely been pointing out that they disagree with Christian belief (which is fine), but some have been quite over the top. For example, from Optimistic's post:
If someone had said that "most gays are a bunch of fucking wackos" (a similarly virulent remark), I have no doubt in my mind that such a person would be banned immediately. Obviously, posts that civilly express disagreement are well and good, but the above is something far more vile imo. It doesn't bother me, personally (because I don't really give a shit what airheads say, and I know very well that I'm not a "fucking wacko"), but I can certainly see how it might be viewed as inconsistency on the part of the administration.
My two cents. Anyway, back to the topic...
If someone had said that "most gays are a bunch of fucking wackos" (a similarly virulent remark), I have no doubt in my mind that such a person would be banned immediately. Obviously, posts that civilly express disagreement are well and good, but the above is something far more vile imo. It doesn't bother me, personally (because I don't really give a shit what airheads say, and I know very well that I'm not a "fucking wacko"), but I can certainly see how it might be viewed as inconsistency on the part of the administration.
My two cents.
Anyway, back to the topic...Oops, missed that one. I was looking at EarthStormFire's posts about the Bible being nothing but lies, which is decidedly less personal. <RUNS OFF TO MOD CONSOLE>Loki said:Also, not to comment too much on the whole "consistency" issue, but I can see Boomer's point. The majority of the posts herein of an anti-Christian bent have merely been pointing out that they disagree with Christian belief (which is fine), but some have been quite over the top. For example, from Optimistic's post:
If someone had said that "most gays are a bunch of fucking wackos" (a similarly virulent remark), I have no doubt in my mind that such a person would be banned immediately. Obviously, posts that express disagreement are well and good, but the above is something far more vile imo. It doesn't bother me, personally (because I don't really give a shit what airheads say), but I can certainly see how it might be viewed as inconsistency on the part of the administration.
My two cents.
In my experience with Calvary Chaple, I wouldn't call them Protestant or extreme, rather I think they are non-denominational and stress the Bible as what God says. However, I've only been to one of them, and I've only heard a few of their preachers, so that's not to say that some of their other ones can't be a little off the deep end, but their core beliefs are sound in accordance with the Bible. That being said, norinrad should make up his own mind, like I said before, I've only given him one place to start if he chooses.Mr. E. Yis said:
To all the detractors, bringing venom instead of civil arguments is weak, this thread wasn't even addressed to you, but if you're going to come in here God/religion blasting, at least present a case or have a reason for it without coming off like a dick, even then, I'm not sure this thread is oppropriate for Religion V. Agnosticism/Aiethiesm debates.
kitchenmotors
Banned
Boomer said:
Based on your experiences? You have no experiences. I'm gay, I can say that it's NOT a choice. I have that experience, I have that right. You can't take that away from me, but it's funny that you tried.
The whole argument that "gay is a choice" is ludacris. When you think about it, it makes shit for sense. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, it's all about what(who) you're sexually attracted to, and you are under no control over who you're attracted to. Attraction is not a choice. Therefore, neither is your sexual preference. That doesn't mean it can't be influenced by outside factors (like traumatic childhood experiences, although I seem to hear about that more with girls than guys), but it's as much of a choice as your heterosexuality is.
now loki, i don't want you to write a novel back at me, but i think you need to consider the idea of some social modes being dominant and some social modes being otherwise. the christian religion is very much dominant in the western world. on the other hand, homosexuality, and by that i mean not just homosexual people but more the idea that homosexuality is a natural human trait is very much dominated. in this light, speaking out against religious zealotry is an act of resistance, whereas speaking out against homosexuality is an act of oppression. so no, i don't particularly think that people should be banned for questioning the assumptions of a religious pathos, but i do think we should be careful that our debate with regards to homosexuality is reasonable.Loki said:If someone had said that "most gays are a bunch of fucking wackos" (a similarly virulent remark), I have no doubt in my mind that such a person would be banned immediately. Obviously, posts that civilly express disagreement are well and good, but the above is something far more vile imo. It doesn't bother me, personally (because I don't really give a shit what airheads say, and I know very well that I'm not a "fucking wacko"), but I can certainly see how it might be viewed as inconsistency on the part of the administration.
My two cents.
that said, i don't want anyone banned. boomer in particular is pretty freaking hilarious.
norinrad21
Banned
Gregory said:
I don't need welfare, the way i see it, its meant for old people and people who cant seem to work because of diseases etc..
Warm Machine
Member
Homosexuality is most likely not genetic...but it is most likely biological. You cannot make someone gay or bring them up gay much like you cannot bring someone up hetrosexual. There is some switch or a collection of switches somewhere in our brains that dictate our level of sexuality and attraction.
That said, religion is a very weird thing. People generally dictate their own level of religiousness even though their level is more likely than not compatible with the religion they are following.
For example, the true sabbath is said to be Saturday yet most people recognize Sunday as the day. Some Christians celebrate Christmas with a tree and everything that goes with it even though there is no real date listed for Jesus' birth and that Christmas trees themselves are Pagan for celebrating the Winter Solstice. The angry step into line God Christian Fundamentalists believe in would smite anyone celebrating christmas as well as worshipping on a Sunday.
Most people swear and drink and have sex out of wedlock and get tattoos and do a myriad of other things that are listed as wrong in the Bible yet still maintain their Christian or even Catholic faith. Once again, smite city!
My advice to anyone is just believe in yourself and use your surroundings, your family, and the laws of your region to dictate your own morality and your own sense of well being. It doesn't matter what book or deity you believe in as each one generally forsakes the other and if there is a fair and loving God the best thing you can do is lead as good of a life as you can.
That said, religion is a very weird thing. People generally dictate their own level of religiousness even though their level is more likely than not compatible with the religion they are following.
For example, the true sabbath is said to be Saturday yet most people recognize Sunday as the day. Some Christians celebrate Christmas with a tree and everything that goes with it even though there is no real date listed for Jesus' birth and that Christmas trees themselves are Pagan for celebrating the Winter Solstice. The angry step into line God Christian Fundamentalists believe in would smite anyone celebrating christmas as well as worshipping on a Sunday.
Most people swear and drink and have sex out of wedlock and get tattoos and do a myriad of other things that are listed as wrong in the Bible yet still maintain their Christian or even Catholic faith. Once again, smite city!
My advice to anyone is just believe in yourself and use your surroundings, your family, and the laws of your region to dictate your own morality and your own sense of well being. It doesn't matter what book or deity you believe in as each one generally forsakes the other and if there is a fair and loving God the best thing you can do is lead as good of a life as you can.
Religion will help you narrow your mind and perception on life and then lead you to a more happiest state of mind most probably. Then you will express positiveness around and you will change your life for the better (but you will think it's god or something but that's fine, you'll be happy)
My advice: deal with life and beat it. Be yourselve and never narrow your mind entering any form of clan. Clans are evil (lol) and goes against evolution.
If you can't support the weight of wisdom and life on your shoulders than please not follow my advice.
My advice: deal with life and beat it. Be yourselve and never narrow your mind entering any form of clan. Clans are evil (lol) and goes against evolution.
If you can't support the weight of wisdom and life on your shoulders than please not follow my advice.
Drinky Crow
Banned
Actually, the New Testament is the new covenant, authored with Christ's suffering for man's sins, and is pretty much interpreted by many operating Christians as a free ticket into heaven as long as faith in Christ's message and sacrifice is maintained. That means they believe that although they do small selfish evils, their faith will ultimately rescue them from the horrible fate they expect for everyone else who disagrees with them.
fart said:
I disagree entirely. Unfortunately, organic chemistry is kicking my ass (time-wise, at least), and so I can't offer a proper rejoinder at the moment. But a novella will be soon in coming, I would imagine.
THERE IS NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE! MAKE YOUR TIME, FART!
Just so you know, I didn't necessarily want anyone banned either-- I was merely pointing out what I felt to be an instance of inconsistency, which has since been recitified.
fart said:
That's like saying that just because they represent the majority, racial slurs coming from whites is racism, while racial slurs from minorities is merely speaking out against oppression. Nice one Futami. And no, people shouldn't be banned for "questioning" the assumptions of the religious, but the vitriolic name-calling is absurd. Apples and oranges my ass. Glad I could provide a laugh.
Loki said:
Hey, me too. Luckily I got microbiology to go with it...
norinrad- sorry for ruining your thread. I'd be happy to answer any questions, but only in PM. Too many assholes on this board.
Drinky Crow said:
That's somewhat shallow of you, Doug-- I expect better.
Christians don't only commit "small, selfish" evils, but quite large evils as well (this is glossing over the equivalency of all sin, a Christian doctrine that I happen to deeply believe in). Further, it's far from a "free" ticket into Heaven, unless you feel that conforming your life to God's will is a facile thing; I can assure you that this is not the case. Intention, and the purity of that intention, is what is measured and judged by God-- just because a Christian may stumble along the way doesn't mean that they have failed (ultimately), so long as they truly believe in Jesus Christ's sacrifice in their hearts and will do their damnedest to express that faith through their works. Faith naturally begets works, not vice-versa, and the measure of faith is not works, but one's motivation and intent-- which only God can accurately ascertain. A true Christian simply will not commit many of the more grievous sins commonly brought up in religious discussions (e.g., "can a murderer be saved?" The answer is yes, but it would take a total character shift on their part, which is unlikely to occur; "total" includes the necessary disinclination to commit further acts against God's will, since God weighs our motives). Even if they (true Christians) do commit some huge sins, it is seen as a personal failing as opposed to the sole criterion by which God will judge them, provided they have the proper faith. We all fail, and all failure (believe it or not) is equivalent; that's how I see it, at least. But a true believer-- not merely one of ostentatious, affected, or superficial faith-- is far less likely to engage in those sorts of actions imo.This was Jesus' message-- that no man is righteous, but that all must come to repentance and an understanding of their place in the world. Hubris is devaluated, and self-abasement raised up in its stead. This is psychologically threatening to many people, quite honestly, and explains some of the caustic reactions one witnesses when Christianity is discussed (to be sure, not all instances of virulent condemnation are thus explained; neither is reasoned, tempered disagreement typically a result of such a thought process, though it can be-- I don't want anyone to think that I believe all disagreement with Christian doctrine can be distilled down to such a rationale, because that is false).
Just a heads-up.
I felt your characterization of the faith to be-- how shall we say-- "lacking". Perhaps "pointed" would be a better word. I still love ya, though (in the rugged, manly, you-make-me-laugh kinda way, not in the cloying, Christian "God loves us all and I love everyone too" sort of way). Boomer: Glad to see someone can empathize, at least.
I'm taking microbio in the spring, but I have orgo, physics, genetics, and industrial & organizational psych right now. <cry> Warm Machine
Member
Drinky Crow said:
It is also interpreted by some as Jesus believing and upholding the old laws as well as his new teachings. Most fervent Christians I had talked to about the subject maintain that any stepping out of line gets you life in hell. Who knows!?! There are guys out there like Jack Chick who are just too into it all.
Drinky Crow
Banned
Loki:
That's the important part. Not all, just many. I'm guessing you don't know many Baptists.
That's the important part. Not all, just many. I'm guessing you don't know many Baptists.
Warm Machine
Member
Hey, aren't there books of the bible that have Jesus killing a few people because they upset him? They are from the time period though not included in new testament or something. Actually I've heard that many many books of the bible have been edited out of the text we have now.
Drinky Crow said:Loki:
That's the important part. Not all, just many. I'm guessing you don't know many Baptists.
Point taken.
Yeah, in one of them, Jesus tells the Pharisees that he can FLIP OUT AT ANY TIME, and warns them against pushing him too far. There's also a webpage given in the text: www.realultimatepower.net ; Jesus fully endorses it for all His followers.
Seriously though, even if there is such a book or writing (and though I've heard of extra-canonical writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, I've never heard of Jesus killing anyone in any of them
), please realize that most of these writings are considered unbiblical for good reason; it's not just because the early Christian church wanted to "cover up" certain things. The fact of the matter is that most, if not all, of them are of questionable origin and authorship; this is borne out by the fact that our modern scholars-- many of whom are not Christian themselves-- agree that they do not belong with the rest of the biblical writings for historiographical reasons. The most exacting, current scholarship in these fields is constantly being applied to these ancient documents (the Bible in particular), so it's not as if the early Church put the Bible together arbitrarily from the writings extant at the time-- they had many of the same criteria that cultural anthropologists and historians of our day do.But Loki, you can not deny when Constantine converted, he wanted one Christianity just like there was one Rome, this is when the New Testament was compilled from all the scriptures and gospels floating around. To my knowledge, there is no official account of how or why they chose some gospels over others. But we do know that once the orthodoxy was established, what they perceived as heresy was repressed.
And pretty please, tell me that the process of compilation was divinely inspired.
And pretty please, tell me that the process of compilation was divinely inspired.
Drinky Crow
Banned
Off the top of my head, I can only think of Christ getting angry twice in the New Testament: one, when he withered some tree to make a point; and b, when he started overturning the moneylenders' tables in the temple. He never killed anyone or advocated killing, although, if I recall correctly, he said something about there being a time to take up the sword (meaning "resistance", not necessarily violence itself).
Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany refused to support Hitler and the Nazis. Many died in the concentration camps with the Jews. In fact, they had a special symbol sewn onto their prison garb: the 'purple triangle', to indicate that they were non-jewish inmates.
Here's more info from the "holocaust teacher resource center", holocaust-trc.org:
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/Jehovah.htm
An exceprt from the above:
Originally written on a pamphlet printed by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Contrast that with the catholic assitance of Hitler's rise to power and all the blooshed that resulted from religious crusades centuries prior and even the systematic child abuse. Is all this forgiven? What have the witneseses done that is unforgivable?
You won't ever find one of Jehovah's witnesses shooting at you or blowing up your children and workplaces. You don't want more of these people in the world? Too bad. There are over 6 million worldwide and over 15 million people attended their only annual religious observance: the memorial of Jesus Christ's death. Therefore, despite the hatred and opposition that is often (mis)directed at them there are millions of interested non-witnesses.
I have a suggestion for you norinrad, continue your study with the Witnesses. You'll probably know more about them than half the people who are telling you to avoid them (most of whom likely derive their impression from propaganda websites). You can judge for yourself what they stand for.
Here's more info from the "holocaust teacher resource center", holocaust-trc.org:
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/Jehovah.htm
An exceprt from the above:
Originally written on a pamphlet printed by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Contrast that with the catholic assitance of Hitler's rise to power and all the blooshed that resulted from religious crusades centuries prior and even the systematic child abuse. Is all this forgiven? What have the witneseses done that is unforgivable?
You won't ever find one of Jehovah's witnesses shooting at you or blowing up your children and workplaces. You don't want more of these people in the world? Too bad. There are over 6 million worldwide and over 15 million people attended their only annual religious observance: the memorial of Jesus Christ's death. Therefore, despite the hatred and opposition that is often (mis)directed at them there are millions of interested non-witnesses.
I have a suggestion for you norinrad, continue your study with the Witnesses. You'll probably know more about them than half the people who are telling you to avoid them (most of whom likely derive their impression from propaganda websites). You can judge for yourself what they stand for.
Doug, I don't think he ever said that people should "take up the sword", although I could be wrong-- I'm not a Christian who has ever been able to recite passages complete with verse number.
What he did say is that He "comes not to bring peace, but a sword, cleaving brother from sister and father from son", or something to that effect. Generally, when considered amongst the bulk of his teachings, this is taken highlight the dichotomy between believers and nonbelievers, a schism which is expressed in myriad ways. Ideally, one's relationship with God-- and, hence, with truth-- should supercede any earthly concerns we may have, even filial bonds. That's a harsh standard, to be sure, but it doesn't implicitly advocate violence against anyone-- or at least no prominent biblical scholar has interpreted it as such.
Sman, those are extremely fine points to speak to; I'm not as up on my biblical history as I used to be. I will say, however, that no matter what criteria those who originally compiled the various texts into our current Bible were employing, it must have had some merit, as current scholars (not all Christian, mind you) largely agree that many, if not all, of those extra-canonical writings are of spurious origin; it's not merely the case that "points A, B, and C don't jive with accepted canon", but rather that many of the features of these writings-- from the date of their supposed origins, to their linguistic style, to the dialects employed, to the very historical, anthropological, and geographic facts they contain-- don't square with the majority of the Biblical manuscripts. These relationships are being examined to this very day; like I said, it's not as if every historian, linguist/etymologist, or anthropologist since then has just never bothered to check to see why one group of writings is similar in origin and intent whereas the others are of dubious lineage. This sort of thing is done constantly. Unfortunately, scholastic rigor when discussing the historicity and textual cohesiveness of the Bible is not a popular quality, which explains the popularity of "The Da Vinci Code".
What he did say is that He "comes not to bring peace, but a sword, cleaving brother from sister and father from son", or something to that effect. Generally, when considered amongst the bulk of his teachings, this is taken highlight the dichotomy between believers and nonbelievers, a schism which is expressed in myriad ways. Ideally, one's relationship with God-- and, hence, with truth-- should supercede any earthly concerns we may have, even filial bonds. That's a harsh standard, to be sure, but it doesn't implicitly advocate violence against anyone-- or at least no prominent biblical scholar has interpreted it as such.
Sman, those are extremely fine points to speak to; I'm not as up on my biblical history as I used to be.
I will say, however, that no matter what criteria those who originally compiled the various texts into our current Bible were employing, it must have had some merit, as current scholars (not all Christian, mind you) largely agree that many, if not all, of those extra-canonical writings are of spurious origin; it's not merely the case that "points A, B, and C don't jive with accepted canon", but rather that many of the features of these writings-- from the date of their supposed origins, to their linguistic style, to the dialects employed, to the very historical, anthropological, and geographic facts they contain-- don't square with the majority of the Biblical manuscripts. These relationships are being examined to this very day; like I said, it's not as if every historian, linguist/etymologist, or anthropologist since then has just never bothered to check to see why one group of writings is similar in origin and intent whereas the others are of dubious lineage. This sort of thing is done constantly. Unfortunately, scholastic rigor when discussing the historicity and textual cohesiveness of the Bible is not a popular quality, which explains the popularity of "The Da Vinci Code". And the Watchtower is well known for turning a blind eye to sexual abuse among its members, just like Catholic Church. So what's your point?
Religions are mad-made institutions and are susceptible to corruption and inconsistencies that afflict other areas of human society. No religion can claim being more moral than rival faiths in all seriousness. Only the faithfuls are short-sighted enough to believe their religion somehow has a monopoly on righteousness.
Thus the bottom line for a newbie should not be what one organization did at one time, but rather what it stands for, what is its central message and if it touches a particular individual.
From what I know of Norinrad, Jehovah's Witnesses are not for him. He is not serious enough and doesn't realize what that life entails. If he must pursue his search, it's better he starts slowly and study on its own or join an organization that isn't too strict, if he must join one. But to relay a message from one of his friends, he shouldn't choose religion to run away from his problems.
Religions are mad-made institutions and are susceptible to corruption and inconsistencies that afflict other areas of human society. No religion can claim being more moral than rival faiths in all seriousness. Only the faithfuls are short-sighted enough to believe their religion somehow has a monopoly on righteousness.
Thus the bottom line for a newbie should not be what one organization did at one time, but rather what it stands for, what is its central message and if it touches a particular individual.
From what I know of Norinrad, Jehovah's Witnesses are not for him. He is not serious enough and doesn't realize what that life entails. If he must pursue his search, it's better he starts slowly and study on its own or join an organization that isn't too strict, if he must join one. But to relay a message from one of his friends, he shouldn't choose religion to run away from his problems.
You'll find this in one of the gnostic gospels. The infancy gospel of yada yada yada. Young Jesus strikes someone dead for walking into him, I believe. Also the same gospel where he creates living creatures/men out of mud, I believe.
Those gospels are really gnostic, by the way. Bible-y folk may be offended.
EDIT: Infancy Gosepl of Thomas: http://www.gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm
I am so smart. I am so smart. SMRT.
' II. 1 This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them). And there were also many other little children playing with him.
3 And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed straightway and told his father Joseph: Lo, thy child is at the brook, and he hath taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds, and hath polluted the Sabbath day. 4 And Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying: Wherefore doest thou these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. 5 And when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do.
III. 1 But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a branch of a willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered together. 2 And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph's house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him 'for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.''
Alright, I got the details a bit mixed up, but the two episodes I mentioned above were actually tied together.
How can you say that with such confidence?
I have firsthand experience with Witnesses as well and they would never badmouth the Watchtower. They really do believe that all witnesses never lie and are beyond criticism (the few bad apples are quickly identified and expelled, or so they say) and the Watchtower is the epitome of that in their eyes. It dictates their whole theology through their periodicals and messages relayed by elders with each congregation and no dissent is allowed.
I have firsthand experience with Witnesses as well and they would never badmouth the Watchtower. They really do believe that all witnesses never lie and are beyond criticism (the few bad apples are quickly identified and expelled, or so they say) and the Watchtower is the epitome of that in their eyes. It dictates their whole theology through their periodicals and messages relayed by elders with each congregation and no dissent is allowed.
The assertion was that Jehovah's Witnesses are known for covering up/encouraging any sexual misdeeds/crimes of it's members. That is patently false. The Catholic church, on the other hand, has become known nationwide (even internationally) for that. When someone says Jehovah's Witness the first thing that comes to mind is their preaching/proselytizing work or maybe the fact that they don't celebrate certain holidays or accept blood transfusions. They are not known for tolerating sexual misconduct because they don't.
- Status