Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, in your former capacity as a conservative evengelical/fundamentalist, what was your own view of those who proclaimed they were a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon? Did you still consider them to be "brother.and sisters in Christ (but of a somewhat different framework)?" Or were their different framing and outlooks on what faith in Christ and the Bible story entails and the conditions for salvation so very much a departure from your own sense of what was right and what was wrong that you viewed them as "apostates" and among "the unsaved"?
Note that, ff my sense of what being a Jehovah's Witness entails and then as well what being a Mormon entails are both correct, they each view themselves as the only ones who will be saved (i.e., that, in their thinking, no other ways-of-thinking that involve the character of Jesus Christ are valid but only their own set of tenets and narratives are valid for subscription to in order to be saved).
I was always taught that JWs and Mormons were non-Christian cults. So they were "too different" to be considered brothers. So yes, they were apostate and "unsaved". Our litmus test would be sola scriptura (violated by the Mormon holy books), the divinity of Christ (complete disagreement by the JWs there), the trinity (the JWs part company again, quite forcefully), and Christ as the sole mediator between god and man, plus a few others.
I suppose that I would have considered outright atheism still worse, but not by much. In fact, in some aspects, an apostate is worse than an unbeliever in that they can deceive / mislead others more readily with "false doctrine".
I don't know how Mormons view JWs but I'm pretty sure JWs view Mormons, along with all other religious beliefs, as wrong / counterfeit. Both are fairly young deviant offshoots of Christianity, but Mormonism appears more liberal and loosely held, JWs more conservative and rigidly held.
I was always taught that JWs and Mormons were non-Christian cults. So they were "too different" to be considered brothers. So yes, they were apostate and "unsaved". Our litmus test would be sola scriptura (violated by the Mormon holy books), the divinity of Christ (complete disagreement by the JWs there), the trinity (the JWs part company again, quite forcefully), and Christ as the sole mediator between god and man, plus a few others.
I suppose that I would have considered outright atheism still worse, but not by much. In fact, in some aspects, an apostate is worse than an unbeliever in that they can deceive / mislead others more readily with "false doctrine".
I don't know how Mormons view JWs but I'm pretty sure JWs view Mormons, along with all other religious beliefs, as wrong / counterfeit. Both are fairly young deviant offshoots of Christianity, but Mormonism appears more liberal and loosely held, JWs more conservative and rigidly held.
Actually, since the posting of mine that you quoted that I addressed to you, I read up on the web about what the Jehovah's Witnesses and then the Mormons believe and, contrary to what I assumed about both of these denominations (i.e., that they both believed that they alone were the only ones who would be saved), it turns out to instead be as follows . . . if I recall correctly what I read:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons): It turns out that the Mormons believe that ALL persons can potentially be saved (even those with other views of Christ than them, as well as Jews, Hindus, atheists and agnostics, Muslims, Wiccans, and all others), that it is dependent on your works while in this life and on your character as perceived by God . . . though, in their system of thought, there ARE differential degrees and levels of reward in the afterlife. And even those who are not saved from the start (even murderers, rapists, and other heinous persons) go to a place (analogous to a hell) but it can be more like a Purgatory for them, as they can prospectively earn their way into heaven after they repent of their wrongful ways and deeds committed while they were alive (though, when they'd get to heaven, they will likely get a lesser degree of reward than those who didn't go those wrongful paths in life that they had).
Jehovah's Witnesses: It appears that they believe that they alone will be the ONLY ones who will be saved and yet, even then, only 144,000 of them . . . or something to that effect.
Jehovah's Witnesses: It appears that they believe that they alone will be the ONLY ones who will be saved and yet, even then, only 144,000 of them . . . or something to that effect.
I believe that was correct in the early days but that was when they were small in numbers. As they grew, they ran into the practical problem that if you have millions of followers, as they now do, limiting the elect to 144,000 is not very motivational. So my understanding of their current position is that the 144,000 are just a higher heavenly caste of sorts that one can aspire to, but that all the other faithful will be there too.
You are however correct to my knowledge that if you are not a JW in good standing you do not get into heaven.
I believe that was correct in the early days but that was when they were small in numbers. As they grew, they ran into the practical problem that if you have millions of followers, as they now do, limiting the elect to 144,000 is not very motivational. So my understanding of their current position is that the 144,000 are just a higher heavenly caste of sorts that one can aspire to, but that all the other faithful will be there too.
You are however correct to my knowledge that if you are not a JW in good standing you do not get into heaven.
Well, that re-doing of their earlier way-of-thinking must have a very CARM-ing effect on all their followers. <----- GET IT? CARM-ING? CALMING?
What can I say? Once a punny guy, always a punny guy!
Well, that re-doing of their earlier way-of-thinking must have a very CARM-ing effect on all their followers. <----- GET IT? CARM-ING? CALMING?
What can I say? Once a punny guy, always a punny guy!
It sound even better spoken than written. Yes. The rewriting of doctrine as necessary to get over practical problems is a modus of religion that I watch with some amazedment ..get the assonance..amazed, amused...? Ah...what do you people know from funny..
It sound even better spoken than written. Yes. The rewriting of doctrine as necessary to get over practical problems is a modus of religion that I watch with some amazedment ..get the assonance..amazed, amused...? Ah...what do you people know from funny..
It is apparent that both you and I served some major time in a punitentiary . . . where we were severely punished. It has apparently had a lasting effect on us.
As to the highlighted quote of yours above:
Yes, their doctrine which "came as revelations to us from the mouth or mind of God Himself" can, when they are backed into an intellectual or epistemological corner by the illogic, incoherencies, flaws, or falsehoods in their thinking, logic, and claims (and their moral conundrums as well), can be, at will, rewritten and revised as deemed fit by them. Yet do they not realize that, in doing so, they are, in essence, correcting God Himself in the process of doing this? Or else, if they say "Well, God wasn't wrong in what He conveyed to us but rather our predecessors interpreted God's wrong somewhat wrong and we are now correcting it." Well then, if so, then how do either you or we know whether YOU now have God's purported s revelations interpreted wrong this time?
It sound even better spoken than written. Yes. The rewriting of doctrine as necessary to get over practical problems is a modus of religion that I watch with some amazedment ..get the assonance..amazed, amused...? Ah...what do you people know from funny..
May I suggest:
"Amuazement" (Am-u-AZE-ment)
However bemusement, which can be treated like a portmanteau of "befuddled" and "bemused" even though, entymologically it is not, is close. How about "Bamused" for "baffled and amused"?
Tacky, dude. Pretty tacky. How do you know she's telling the truth? But you are using this account (of which you have no way of verifying) to make statements regarding him and his parenting.
I'm sure NO kid has EVER made a false statement or alleged abuse that didn't actually happen regarding their parents, huh?
*
Last edited by thrillobyte; 09-14-2015 at 07:43 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. The rewriting of doctrine as necessary to get over practical problems is a modus of religion that I watch with some amazedment ..get the assonance..amazed, amused...? Ah...what do you people know from funny..
