Why do Christians "dislike" Jehovah's Witnesses????

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Kitherion
Member

since 2006-08-01

Posts 181
Johannesburg

0 posted 2007-09-25 12:58 PM

I can't understand it, so someone please explain....

"Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..."

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

1 posted 2007-09-25 01:21 AM

I'm not a Christian, I don't dislike JW's, but I do find The Watchtower an irritating read.

[This message has been edited by Brad (09-25-2007 02:49 AM).]

stargal
Senior Member

since 2006-03-06

Posts 1352
OR USA

2 posted 2007-09-25 01:59 AM

Isn't this being presumptuous in assuming all Christains dislike Jehevah's witnesses?

I dislike lima beans therefore all asain women dislike lima beans

"The rising morning can't insure that we shall end the day; For death stands ready at the door to snatch our lives away"
@-->---

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

3 posted 2007-09-25 02:13 AM

Christians don't necessarily "dislike" Jehovah's Witnesses personally.  (Though that is possible, and much more likely when differences exist)  It's more of a disagreement about doctrine that's pretty foundational to Christian belief.

The Watchtower is a fairly new religion.  But the doctrinal dispute has been around much longer, called Arianism.  It's simply a contemporary repackaging of that same dispute about the deity of Jesus Christ.  Then there's a few other peculiarities (such as the insistence upon an obligatory continuance of the name 'Jehovah' ... to the absurd point of artificially altering the Greek New Testament scriptures to say the same, by transplanting the Hebrew "YHWH" (intentionally mispronounced by the Jews as 'Jehovah') to replace the Greek "Kyrios")  The "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" is one of the most horrendous translations of the Bible ever, that in my opinion was obviously given a doctrinal face-lift, and changed pretty much at will.  Some volumes are translated to fit doctrines already in mind.  (You can say that Trinitarianism did the same with other translations of the bible ... but if so, they did a much better job covering all their tracks.  Maybe the conspiracy theorists were right)  Then there's the insistence upon the sinfulness of receiving and giving blood transfusions based upon Old Testament scriptures concerning diet ... and things like that.

I certainly don't want to parse about non-essentials.  But for a Christian, the heresy of Arianism seems the most serious.

Again, it doesn't at all have to be personal.  I've got a neighbor who is a JW, and we get along great.  The door-to-door JWs I always invite in to discuss their doctrines (in a most friendly manner), as well as the Mormon "elders" who come up on their bicycles.  I at least give them something to think about.  Though I'm always hospitable and amiable, I think they've marked me off of their visitation list to preserve their piety.  I don't think they were looking for that much analysis.

Stephen.

Kitherion
Member

since 2006-08-01

Posts 181
Johannesburg

4 posted 2007-09-25 09:36 AM

Okay, so mabye I misphrased the question.... sorry, didn't mean it to be that way. But Steph, the doctrinal differences are minimal, and if i am correct the dieism (good gosh I don't even know if that word exists... ) of Jesus, creates a good enough point for people (not neccesarily all christians, I generrally refer to the so called new born christians... no offence meant but that's as far as I understand...) to generalise against them...

I'm now more confused than ever...

"Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..."

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

5 posted 2007-09-25 09:44 AM

Kith,

thats "deity" which refers to the understanding that Jesus is God come in the flesh ... ie "incarnation".

That really represents a difference of doctrine that isn't so minimal, if you understand what is being said.

Again, there's no reason that doctrinal difference should affect whether or not we treat someone right. Sadly, sinful human nature takes all kinds of differences (not just religious) and makes excuses of them to treat someone in ill fashion. Don't you think?

Stephen

Larry C

Member Patricius

since 2001-09-10

Posts 10286
United States

6 posted 2007-09-25 02:03 PM

Well, I must say Stephen is spot on in every regard and the differences are not minimal. I have a number of friends that JW's and love them to death. I don't care for their doctrines but admire their determination. And I believe Kitherion you have in the body of Stephen's response the core answers to your question. Do they experience prejudice ore disrespect. No doubt. But it says more about the person than the JW's.

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane,
I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

Kitherion
Member

since 2006-08-01

Posts 181
Johannesburg

7 posted 2007-09-26 03:40 AM

But then what are the core doctrinal differences? I know that I must sound a nuisance, but still, I'm curious

"Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..."

rwood
Member Elite

since 2000-02-29

Posts 3793
Tennessee

8 posted 2007-09-26 07:28 AM

Some JW differences include:

Only 144000 people go to heaven. The rest of the believers will have a heaven on earth.

There's no fiery hell. Sheol (Hebrew) the world of the departed, and Hades (Greek) the grave or dark place. Which leads to a different belief of the soul.

Christmas or birthdays, in general, are not celebrated because they are not commanded from scripture. They do observe Easter and wedding anniversaries.

and I think JW believe that Michael the Archangel became Jesus?

anyway, yeah, here's a link to more in depth things Jehovah's Witnesses.

Most outside information harbors negativity toward them due to certain departures from Christian doctrines, and there are clear departures. Many feel their religion is a cult.

I have known several and discussed much and find them no more weird than myself or any other. Except sometimes I'm more weird. I still believe in miracles. So there.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

9 posted 2007-09-26 09:50 AM

Michael th Archangel became Jesus?I'm converting!!!

Actually, I don't dislike them at all...except in airports.

moondogz
Member

since 2007-05-01

Posts 397
Great White North

10 posted 2007-09-26 10:18 AM

Personally I don't want ANYONE knocking on my door preaching to me...and the ones I've met appear to be brainwashed...sorry but I can't think of any other way of putting it.
But that's just my opinion, I don't believe most of what's in the bible anyway and can't understand how anyone else can either.
moon.

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

11 posted 2007-09-26 10:55 AM

Kith,

The most significant doctrinal difference is that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a form of Arianism, which in effect says that Jesus was only a mortal and not also divine.

The Biblical texts are strong to tell us that Jesus is God incarnate, as well as a man.  "Trinitarian" doctrine being deduced from the earlier doctrine of Christ's Divinity.

Not without some humor, their insistence upon using the name "Jehovah" even in the Greek New Testament, proved to quite problematic for their Arian stance ... In many passages where the Greek originally said "Lord (Kyrios) Jesus", it now said "Jehovah Jesus".  It turned out that their textual alterations supported orthodox views even more than the originals!

Having said these things ... The best way to understand the "differences" between orthodox Christianity and The Watchtower is to study the Bible in depth for yourself, and see whether it truly sustains what the "Jehovah's Witnesses" teach.  If one's personal salvation has anything to do with who Jesus is, such beliefs do matter.

Stephen

Edward Grim
Senior Member

since 2005-12-18

Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina

12 posted 2007-09-26 11:34 AM

I don't dislike anyone just because their beliefs are different than mine; that'd be stupid.

The only memories I have of JW were when I was back in Florida. They were the funny people decked out in suits in 100-degree weather. They were also the people that rang my doorbell and wouldn't go away till my soul was "saved." I mean, I took their pamphlets but they still wouldn't leave, jeez.

Other than not knowing how to dress in Florida heat and not letting me go back into my house, I have nothing against them.

"Well I wish that you would cheat with someone, 'cause you're like diggin' holes in water and we know that can't be done."

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

13 posted 2007-09-26 06:51 PM

quote:
They were also the people that rang my doorbell and wouldn't go away till my soul was "saved."

Yeah, in the middle of a blizzard.

Kitherion
Member

since 2006-08-01

Posts 181
Johannesburg

14 posted 2007-09-27 07:49 AM

Number 1, Steph, I do know my bible. And just so you know, I have a copy of their bible aswell. There is no "Jehovah Jesus" ever mentioned.

"Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..."

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

15 posted 2007-09-27 10:13 AM

Kith,

You're right. I failed to mention that in those particular places where Jesus is next to the word "Lord", they arbitrarily chose not change it to Jehovah. Why would they? That would be too damaging to their doctrinal stance. But at least you can see how arbitrary and inconsistent that is right?

They insisted that the Greek word "Kyrios" be replaced with "Jehovah" in all instances except when it would have implicated Jesus' name with divinity! Their method would have (had they been consistent) rendered the phrase "Jehovah Jesus" many times over.

Is that using integrity and honesty in translation?

Stephen

Kitherion
Member

since 2006-08-01

Posts 181
Johannesburg

16 posted 2007-09-28 12:14 PM

Oh, okay, that makes sense. But, I was doing some research last night and I found out that "Kyrios" was an indication of a higher divinity, and not of Jesus. I have also noticed that in 1 John where Jesus is called God, most bible scholars indicate an eroor in translation, and register it rather as "the word was A god" rather than " and the word was God."

Now what?

"Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..."

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

17 posted 2007-09-28 01:19 AM

quote:
Oh, okay, that makes sense. But, I was doing some research last night and I found out that "Kyrios" was an indication of a higher divinity,

a higher divinity? Not sure what you mean by that. I assure you that the idea of different "levels" of divinity is not to be found in the Bible. What sources are you using for research?

quote:
and not of Jesus.

Why would it not refer to Jesus if the word was originally written in reference to his name, many times right beside it? That doesn't make sense.

quote:
I have also noticed that in 1 John where Jesus is called God, most bible scholars indicate an eroor in translation, and register it rather as "the word was A god" rather than " and the word was God."

First of all that's in the Gospel of John, not in 1 John.  And actually the scholarly consensus is the opposite of what you're saying.  Most translators have not translated this passage as "a god" but rather as "God".  There's a reason for that in the Greek, and I can explain it to you if you want me to.  I can assure you that there is no consistency in the translation of the NWT in passages like this ... For example, they translated John 20:28 as "God", and the Greek is identical to John 1:1 where they translated it as "a god".  I'm telling you, this is a glaring example of making a text say what one wishes, rather than translating according to what the original writer was conveying.

I wish you could come over.  I would brew you a pot of coffee, and show you what I'm talking about by letting you read and compare.

peace,

Stephen

oceanvu2
Senior Member

since 2007-02-24

Posts 1066
Santa Monica, California, USA

18 posted 2007-09-28 04:11 PM

I don't have a particular problem with JW's, Mormons, or snake handlers either. I do have a problem with the overzealous of any stripe, including mine, which may or may not be wishy-washy yellow.

Best, Jim

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

19 posted 2007-09-28 10:03 PM

You don't think snake handlers are over zealous??

Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

20 posted 2007-10-02 09:06 PM

Do Jehovah Witnesses still refuse blood transfusions?

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

21 posted 2007-10-03 02:27 AM

I think some do, and some don't. But their doctrine is pretty firm on that. As an R.N. I've personally seem some die from profound anemia and a refusal slip, and I've seen others capitulate.

Stephen

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

22 posted 2007-10-03 11:54 AM

I'm just here to assure Stephan that there is such a thing as an over-zealous snake handler.

and oh...came back to clarify that my little joke was on me.

While I was in Crowley, I was playing with a snake. I apparently was having more fun than the snake--he made doo doo on me.

[This message has been edited by serenity blaze (10-03-2007 12:53 PM).]

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

23 posted 2007-10-03 02:47 PM

Karen,

Me too!

I'm not usually afraid to pick up snakes.

I picked up a rat snake at my Grandpa's house in Claxton Georgia one day (years ago). He was black with a yellow stripe. Before I knew it a yellowish liquid was dribbling all over me, and the smell was possibly one the worst I had ever smelled. Just wanted you know that we have a shared experience.

Stephen

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.