Jehovah Witness

escapethematrix

Lillylilly wrote: »

The religion is called Jehovah's Witnesses, as in witnesses of Jehovah, which is allegedly God's name. Check the bible!!!

Which bible? You must be aware that Jehovah does not appear one single time in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The WT just put it there when they came across the word Lord and didn't want it to be Jesus. Last time I checked that isn't translation but interpretation.

As for the hebrew, there is no way of knowing 100% but its highly unlikely that Jehovah is the correct pronounciation of the tetra YHWH (A fact even the WT admits). Its more likely its Yahweh but WT decided to use Jehovah because it sounded better.

Onesimus

Lillylilly wrote: »

The religion is called Jehovah's Witnesses, as in witnesses of Jehovah, which is allegedly God's name. Check the bible!!!

It is a religion invented by yet another american wacko in 1917 and does not trace itself or practices back to the apostles.

Check your history!!!

JimiTime

Onesimus wrote: »

It is a religion invented by yet another american wacko in 1917 and does not trace itself or practices back to the apostles.

Check your history!!!

Your statements really don't help Onesimus. All you do by stating such ignorant things, is allow others to get a persecution complex and point to you as an example of 'See, its just some people hate us' etc. Think about how you would react if someone start saying something like, Roman Catholocism was just a religion set up by some pagan Roman emperor. Such language does not help the person see the problems of the religion, but rather provokes a defensive stance and is counter productive. You know what I mean?:)

Onesimus

I have pointed out its problems and those problems are that they done trace back to the true Church established in 33AD

To become steeped in history is to cease to be Jehovah

Here is a link: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/history.html

JimiTime

Onesimus wrote: »

I have pointed out its problems and those problems are that they done trace back to the true Church established in 33AD

To become steeped in history is to cease to be Jehovah

Here is a link: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/history.html

You need to ask yourself what your goal is. It certainly does not seem that helping is part of your goal. You have already been corrected on your terminology for instance. Whether you like it or not, 'Jehovah', 'Yahweh' etc are translations of the tetragrammaton of YHWH. Which is the name God revealed to us in the Hebrew scriptures. So your very disrespectful use of it, is astoundingly inappropriate for a professing Christian.

Onesimus

JimiTime wrote: »

You need to ask yourself what your goal is. It certainly does not seem that helping is part of your goal. You have already been corrected on your terminology for instance. Whether you like it or not, 'Jehovah', 'Yahweh' etc are translations of the tetragrammaton of YHWH. Which is the name God revealed to us in the Hebrew scriptures. So your very disrespectful use of it, is astoundingly inappropriate for a professing Christian.

In Hebrew the name of God is spelled YHWH. Since ancient Hebrew had no written vowels, it is uncertain how the name was pronounced originally, but there are records of the name in Greek, which did have written vowels. These records indicate that in all likelihood the name should be pronounced "Yahweh."

Shortly before the first century A.D., it became common for Jews to avoid saying the divine name for fear of misusing it and breaking the second commandment ("You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain," Dt 5:11). Whenever they read Scripture aloud and encountered the divine name, they substituted another Hebrew word, "Adonai" (which means "Lord" or "my Lord"), in its place.

Eventually Hebrew developed written vowels, which appeared as small marks called vowel points and were placed above and below the consonants of a word. In the sixth or seventh century some Jews began to place the vowel points for "Adonai" over the consonants for "Yahweh" to remind the reader of Scripture to say "Adonai" whenever he read "Yahweh."

About the 13th century the term "Jehovah" appeared when Christian scholars took the consonants of "Yahweh" and pronounced it with the vowels of "Adonai." This resulted in the sound "Yahowah," which has a Latinized spelling of "Jehovah." The first recorded use of this spelling was made by a Spanish Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, in 1270.

Interestingly, this fact is admitted in much Jehovah's Witness literature, such as their Aid to Bible Understanding (p. 885). This is surprising because Jehovah's Witnesses loathe the Catholic Church and have done everything in their power to strip their church of traces of Catholicism. Despite this, their group's very name contains a Catholic "invention," the name "Jehovah."

Jehovah's Witnesses blast orthodox Christendom for "hiding the name of God" by replacing "Jehovah" with "the Lord" whenever "Jehovah" appears in Scripture. They charge this is a Jewish "superstition" that dishonors God (which it does not). Yet their own organization has a name that was invented as a result of the same thinking that produced use of "the Lord."

Jehovahs themselves do not even understand its true history or terminology. They are not witnesses of God they are witnesses for the american man who invented this doctrine.

Onesimus

In addition to the use of Jehovah for the name of God: New Testament Greek always uses the word "Lord," and never "Jehovah," even in quotes from the Old Testament (OT). Encyclopedia Judaica, Webster’s Encyclopedia, Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia and countless others agree that the title "Jehovah" is erroneous, grammatically impossible, and was never used by the Jews.

Jehovahs even predicted in their publications in 1946 that the world would come to an end before 1972 ehhhh didnt come true though did it?

it's a sect to be avoided. my contention towards this erroneous belief ends here.

Onesimus

JimiTime

Onesimus wrote: »

In addition to the use of Jehovah for the name of God: New Testament Greek always uses the word "Lord," and never "Jehovah," even in quotes from the Old Testament (OT). Encyclopedia Judaica, Webster’s Encyclopedia, Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia and countless others agree that the title "Jehovah" is erroneous, grammatically impossible, and was never used by the Jews.

Jehovahs even predicted in their publications in 1946 that the world would come to an end before 1972 ehhhh didnt come true though did it?

it's a sect to be avoided. my contention towards this erroneous belief ends here.

Onesimus

Again, your contention is not the issue. Most here contend with the religion. Its how you are presenting your contention. Of course, you are quite free to contend any way you like in line with the charter. I'm just saying that maybe you should take a step back, and see how the manner in which you contend is perceived. IMO, it will not help someone see the light with regards the JW's.

philologos

lecorbeau wrote: »

For our daughter, this really has nothing to do with religion. Its all about doing what the friend does, it really is.

If the friend painted her face blue, our daughter would do the same.

You've said this a number of times, but what happens if in a few years time she decides to search for herself? Will you tell her she can't?

I take it you've never talked about your own faith with your child so as others have said she has no point of reference to compare this to.

Parents always try to shield their children from the world, but eventually they can't any longer.

lecorbeau

philologos wrote: »

You've said this a number of times, but what happens if in a few years time she decides to search for herself? Will you tell her she can't?

I take it you've never talked about your own faith with your child so as others have said she has no point of reference to compare this to.

Parents always try to shield their children from the world, but eventually they can't any longer.

In a few years she can do as she pleases. She is 12 years old and a childish 12 year old at that.

Yes we have talked about our own faith. We are no super religious catholics but we believe.

Maybe I am shielding her, but this girl lost her real daddy when she was 3 years old and had a difficult few years after that. When I met her mother I immediately acted as step-father and love her like my own. I will continue to protect her, its my role.

I'm not a control freak that dictates everything that goes on in my house, far from it.

Spoke with my wife last night, I will post a reply soon..... just need to do a little work

escapethematrix

lecorbeau wrote: »

In a few years she can do as she pleases. She is 12 years old and a childish 12 year old at that.

JWs recently published articles where it featured children getting baptized. In the congregation I came from children as young as 10-12 were being allowed to get baptized.

Whats the harm?

How many teenagers make bad judgement calls? (It's called growing up). If you are a JW and for example have sex outside of marriage (not saying this is wrong...) the following will happen.

1) You will be called to a judicial committee where 3 men (elders) will sit across a table from you.
2) THey will ask you what you did, details about what happened, how did you feel, what type of sex was involved, gritty details...
3) These meetings are closed door and you can't have family friends with you.
4) You will be expected to repent and say you're sorry... it was a mistake etc.
5) You will then be asked to leave the room (sometimes for over 30 minutes) while they discuss your case.

The following are the possible outcomes:
1) You will be disfellowshipped. If the elders believe that you have not repented. This means no one in the congregation apart from the elders will speak to you (only select elders who deal with the case). Even family members are advised to limit association with you. You will not be allowed to participate in the meetings, generally you will sit at the back of the hall and be ignored. An announcement will be made from the platform telling everyone you are no longer a publisher. You are now a black sheep. Eventually if you work hard enough, attend all the meetings, after a couple more meetings with the elders you will be reinstated. This process can take over a year in some cases.

2) The other outcome is that you are reproved, basically you get your priveleges removed. Perhaps you can't go on ministry, answer in the meetings. You may also be marked meaning ones in the congregation may choose to limit association with you because you are a bad influence. If you are a young one this means you will be isolated. JWs have "get togethers" instead of partys, you will be sidelined from these. Since you don't have friends in the world (or at least shouldn't according to WT teachings), you are even more alone.

Another scenario:
How many teenagers change their mind about what they believe? If you one day realise the JW are wrong the following will happen.
1) You will be called to a judicial committee where 3 men (elders) will sit acorss a table from you.
2) You will be asked about your doubts.
3) You will be asked do you believe that the Governing body / faithful and discreete slave are gods representatives here on earth.
The following ar the possible outcomes:
1) You are disfellowshipped, the congregation may label you an apostate (think of witches in the middle ages and that is how you will be viewed). You will be actively ignored. People will cross over the street to avoid talking to you. Apostasy in the WT organization is possibly the worst "crime" to be charged with. Regardless of how well reasoned your arguments are, both scientically and scripturally. If you do not accept, without question the direction of the men in NY you are headstrong, full of pride, haughty (these are words they use). There is no reconciling this position. As long as you do not accept WT as gods servant, your family, your friends, people who have known you maybe all your life will be obliged to ignore you - to shun you. Yes there are exceptions (the rebel JWs, the ones who have beards... because beards are frowned upon) but you will never openly be able to go out to the cinema with your JW friends as a disfellowshipped person.
2) You lie and lead a double life. Always looking over your shoulder. Never able to trust your JW friends. In my case I confided in a friend I had known for years. A friend who I believed had gone through similar experience. He went behind my back to the elders and told them everything. Lessson learned.

ISAW

lecorbeau wrote: »

In a few years she can do as she pleases. She is 12 years old and a childish 12 year old at that.

Yes we have talked about our own faith. We are no super religious catholics but we believe.

Maybe I am shielding her, but this girl lost her real daddy when she was 3 years old and had a difficult few years after that. When I met her mother I immediately acted as step-father and love her like my own. I will continue to protect her, its my role.

I'm not a control freak that dictates everything that goes on in my house, far from it.

Spoke with my wife last night, I will post a reply soon..... just need to do a little work

I think you seem quite responsible.
But you should learn a bit about the JW's and the core teachings which differ from mainstream christians.

For example:
- their rewriting of the Bible canonical texts which were the same for thousands of years.
- the "secret books" of the elders
- the "shunning" of people who leave
- the belief in creationism i.e. the Earth is about 10,000 years old

You might also look up the psychology of authoritarianism
Ask them to do the "quiz" in the first chapter - only 20 or so questions ( on page 11-12) takes about 3 minutes

and the 12 question quiz on page 106
Print out and Do both ( you do it too) before you reads anything
Ask your daughter to do it as well
If they are only giving harmless advice surely they can do a "harmless quiz"
If they can't do it in English I am surprised since you will find most of the elders and church members speak English.
Of course your wife and translate it.

Learn the difference between leaders and followers and read Chapter 4 in particular after doing the second quiz.

By the way it is quite critical of religion.



Here is a link: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

eyescreamcone

Onesimus wrote: »

It is a religion invented by yet another american wacko in 1917 and does not trace itself or practices back to the apostles.

Check your history!!!

Your religion (if you actually are RCC) seems very odd to people like me.

You believe all children are born sinners - 100% crazy talk!!!
This in my opinion was only INVENTED to frighten parents into helping with recruitment.

You believe that the water and wine gets turned into the body and blood of the son of your god... who is part of the same god.

In fact, when your missionary recruiters went into the jungles to convert perfectly happy tribes in Indonesia they were rebuffed as cannibals for eating the body of their own god.

[snip]

Also the RCCs desire to collect hard currency at every turn should warn sane people away. Probably discounts you tho

All religions can be taken apart, as they are all man made fairy stories, made up to control innocent folk back in the day.

It's all about control...and the cash of course !!!

Fanny Cradock

But all that is better suited to the A&A forum, isn't it? So take it there, please.

Paparazzo

Well done escapethematrix for some proper advice and information. Some earlier posts saying stuff like "what harm can it do", "i know a JW and he's nice so they must be ok", "they follow the bible so there's no problem" are so misinformed they're dangerous. Imagine no one like escapethematrix or a couple of other posters came along so lecorbeau actually believed the misinformed posts and let his daughter be?

The most important thing lecorbeau is that you're uncomfortable with it. You're the parent so you can help her avoid these teachings. Just do it delicately so you don't push her towards the JW's.

lecorbeau

Update :

I spoke with my wife last night and told her some of the things I had researched and told her about this thread.

At first she was very defensive and said she has cousins in her country who are JW and they are normal and never tried to convert any of the family, and they live normal lives.

I said "yes maybe they are and Im not saying anything bad about your cousins, if it works for them, so be it" ..... "but we dont know anything about this woman and her intentions".

I explained to her JW religious beliefs and their rules they must live by and blood transfusion belief etc etc etc.

Our son wasn't very well so we had to stop the chat to take care of him.

We agreed to read this thread together tonight and to read more.

Scary bit :
I asked my wife if she had plans to study also, her answer was "No I dont, but if I do, are you going to leave me" ......

I said "you dont have plans now, but this woman will work on you and you are her next target" ....

My step daughter knows whats going on and as been cold with me for a few days. Ok, here is the question, will this woman really try to turn my step daughter against me ? My wife thinks this is insane that it will never happen. Ive read too much in the last few days to think its insane, the more I read the more I believe it.

I'm judging from my wifes reactions that our daughter will go tomorrow evening for her second session.

Starting to panic a bit about this

Fanny Cradock

lecorbeau wrote: »

Starting to panic a bit about this

Perhaps you are working yourself into state of panic. It seems to me that you are projecting the worst possible outcomes onto this developing situation. Again, I would advise that both you and your wife sit down over the next few days and talk about this in a calm a manner as possible.

On a related issue, I think that the whatever drove your wife's question, "No I don't, but if I do, are you going to leave me?" is really worth exploring.

lecorbeau

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you are working yourself into state of panic. It seems to me that you are projecting the worst possible outcomes onto this developing situation. Again, I would advise that both you and your wife sit down over the next few days and talk about this in a calm a manner as possible.

On a related issue, I think that the whatever drove your wife's question, "No I don't, but if I do, are you going to leave me?" is really worth exploring.

You are right, I am projecting the worst possible scenario.
We will sit down tonight and talk about this some more.

This situation has also raised some questions for me about our marriage and my role as step-father / guardian for these girls. We need to discuss this also.

Fanny Cradock

lecorbeau wrote: »

You are right, I am projecting the worst possible scenario.
We will sit down tonight and talk about this some more.

This situation has also raised some questions for me about our marriage and my role as step-father / guardian for these girls. We need to discuss this also.

Maybe loads of positives can come from this! Down the line, counselling might be an option to help you both work on answers to these questions. People tend to think of this as something you do when your relationship is broken, but I tend to think that an impartial opinion is useful for any big decision.

eyescreamcone

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But all that is better suited to the A&A forum, isn't it? So take it there, please.

Of course it's relevant if the RCC poster slags off the nouveau religion as being ridiculous.
And the fact that RCC are big into recruitment themselves and have always been so is also relevant to the debate.

I was just showing up the poster as being biased against non-RCC religions and viewpoints.
Maybe you are too Fanny?!

Let those without sin throw the first stone - as Mr. J. Christ once said (allegedly)

Donatello

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Let those without sin throw the first stone - as Mr. J. Christ once said (allegedly)

^ That verse was never meant to be used to shut down discussion about what is true religion and what is false. We must be discerning.

To the OP, there is a booklet available here from the Knights of Columbanus. It is a Catholic critique of the JWs. Click the link - you can view the booklet in a variety of formats by clicking the links on the left side of the page:

http://www.archive.org/details/ACatholicCritiqueOfJehovahsWitnesses

PDF is the best, imho: http://ia600200.us.archive.org/12/items/ACatholicCritiqueOfJehovahsWitnesses/catholic_critique_jehovahs_witnesses.pdf

Originally published in 1963 and distributed by the Knights of Columbus, this critique has unfortunately long been out of print. The author's intended audience is not the Witnesses themselves but those whom they seek to convert. The author explains:

In what follows we shall attempt to investigate the more outstanding peculiarities of the Witnesses' creed... .We would emphasize our purpose in doing this, which is not to ridicule or make light of anyone's beliefs simply because they are not our beliefs. What has prompted this analysis is the Witnesses' own insistence on their beliefs as truths which contradict our beliefs and are incompatible with them. We shall approach the Witnesses' creed from the standpoint of those elements which are avowedly destructive of the J udeo-Christian tradition in which we stand. In doing so, we hope to do a service not merely for those of the Catholic religion but also for all who share the concern of the Catholic Church for the fundamental doctrines and values of the Christianity which has molded our society... .

If our judgments have sounded harsh, we insist that we have intended no ridicule for honestly held beliefs as such. Sincerity in belief is an admirable quality. Respect for sincerity, however, may not ever blind us to the duty of service to the truth, and of the defense of our own cherished heritage. We have addressed ourselves far less to the Witnesses themselves than to
those who have been the targets of their propagandizing.

lecorbeau

Donatello wrote: »

^ That verse was never meant to be used to shut down discussion about what is true religion and what is false. We must be discerning.

To the OP, there is a booklet available here from the Knights of Columbanus. It is a Catholic critique of the JWs. Click the link - you can view the booklet in a variety of formats by clicking the links on the left side of the page:

http://www.archive.org/details/ACatholicCritiqueOfJehovahsWitnesses

thank you Donatello, will read tonight

eyescreamcone

Donatello wrote: »

^ That verse was never meant to be used to shut down discussion about what is true religion and what is false. We must be discerning.

The JW religion to my discerning eye is AS WORTHY of derision as any other religion/cult, especially the RCC religion/cult.

Your notion of true religions and false religions, to me seems daft!!!

Fanny Cradock

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Of course it's relevant if the RCC poster slags off the nouveau religion as being ridiculous.
And the fact that RCC are big into recruitment themselves and have always been so is also relevant to the debate.

I was just showing up the poster as being biased against non-RCC religions and viewpoints.
Maybe you are too Fanny?!

Let those without sin throw the first stone - as Mr. J. Christ once said (allegedly)

Given that we know what you already think, if you want to discuss the veracity of other religions then take it to the A&A forum. The disdain you can barely manage to keep out of your posts will be welcomed by some over there. This thread is about JW, so keep it on topic or don't reply. I've been more than patient with you over the last few regrettable interactions we have had. No more chances.

Ayla

OP - the entire religion argument aside (since you asked for a parent's viewpoint):

What would concern me most about this entire situation is that you & your wife entrusted your child into the care of a family friend. This friend then thought it completely acceptable to allow/invite a third party into their house while your child was there, and that third party was allowed/encouraged to interact with your child. You don't personally know this third party, and regardless of what that person's bringing to the conversation I'd be concerned.

It's not right, in my opinion, that your family friend allowed someone that you don't know into their home when your child was there without checking with you. To me, that's a breech of trust...how would she feel if you invited someone over to your house while her daughter was there?

lecorbeau

Ayla wrote: »

OP - the entire religion argument aside (since you asked for a parent's viewpoint):

What would concern me most about this entire situation is that you & your wife entrusted your child into the care of a family friend. This friend then thought it completely acceptable to allow/invite a third party into their house while your child was there, and that third party was allowed/encouraged to interact with your child. You don't personally know this third party, and regardless of what that person's bringing to the conversation I'd be concerned.

It's not right, in my opinion, that your family friend allowed someone that you don't know into their home when your child was there without checking with you. To me, that's a breech of trust...how would she feel if you invited someone over to your house while her daughter was there?

Ayla, our daughter often visits her best friends house and her best friend visits our house.

I agree its completely unacceptable that the best friends mother invited the JW around the evening our daughter was there.

Whats making me crazy is that my wife cannot see this !! .....

The best friends mother is NOT a family friend. My wife knows her as our daughter is in the same class as her daughter and the 2 children are best friends. However, the best friends mother is starting to become friends with my wife as a result of the 2 girls spending time together.

yawnstretch

I think you are right to be cautious about this but it sounds more like a panic-attack to me.

You fear you will lose your step-daughter. This is the motivating factor and the event may be triggering this. Remember your step daughter did ask whether she could go to church so it wasn't completely out of nowhere just poor communication.

That's not to say your fears are therefore cancelled but you may need to step back as you have already expressed your feelings enough to your step-daughter (who may be subconsciously more wary of the woman) and your wife.

For now I would wait and see. Let it play out. You've given as much warning as you can without them blocking you out. Also remember, she is entering her teens and will need to learn some lessons herself.

Quo Vadis

lecorbeau wrote: »

You are right, I am projecting the worst possible scenario.
We will sit down tonight and talk about this some more.

This situation has also raised some questions for me about our marriage and my role as step-father / guardian for these girls. We need to discuss this also.

This advice may not be necessary at this stage, but in case it doesn’t go your way ;

Take everything very slow and steady, do not try to resolve this issue in a hurry or force a conclusion. It may take months, perhaps several years.

Choose your words very carefully, and listen carefully to what your wife and daughter have to say. At the end of the day if they are determined go down the route of the JW, you might be better to say, I've told you my concerns, but I'll respect and support you in what you decide, I'll even drive you to the meetings and collect you, we're a family, but we don't have to have the same religion if you want to explore another one. (i.e. don't tell them this, but there may be no other way but let them learn the hard way by making their own mistakes, but with your support)

It's not worth loosing your wife and daughter over. As unconditional love is just that, unconditional.

Perhaps you could also have a chat with a local priest you feel is approachable, they may be able to give you some advice. Part of all this, is they might have concerns with the Catholic Church at the minute, and he might be able to lay their minds at ease and answer the difficult questions they might always have wanted to ask, but I would not get them to meet the Priest themselves unless your wife initiates it.

God luck and God Bless, our prayers are with you.

Practising Catholic or not, I would advise to start saying the Rosary during this trying time and ask for Our Lady's guidance and assistance. At the very least it will ease your anxiety and give you comfort. Trust me on this.

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On a related issue, I think that the whatever drove your wife's question, "No I don't, but if I do, are you going to leave me?" is really worth exploring.

OP
What do you mean by this statement?

i.e does "leave me " mean
"leave me do the study"
or
"leave me and my daughter and live somewhere else"

ISAW

eyescreamcone wrote: »

The JW religion to my discerning eye is AS WORTHY of derision as any other religion/cult, especially the RCC religion/cult.

Your notion of true religions and false religions, to me seems daft!!!

You are ignorant of core Christianity.

The basis central beliefs of christianity and the books of Christianity have been ther for 1500 to 2,000 years.

About 100 years ago someone claiming to be "Christian" sets up the JW's and rewrites the ancient books and introduces a slew of ideas thrown out in the early Church.

It is nonsense to say they are the same and "equally false" just as it would be nonsense for someone to write the "communist Manifesto" this year and claim it is Marx's original words and revisit all the concepts in communism claiming this is what Marx wrote. In particular putting in phrases like "private property and private capital are what society should work towards having"