WAR IS OVER-IF YOU WANT IT

by proplog2 72 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  VoidEater

  Are they [the UN] NOT influenced by orthodox religions that feel threatened by a loss of membership?

  7M out of 7B doesn't seem like something to create a global conspiracy over.

  I would say that a religion that practices mutilation of sexual organs as a condition of membership has a good start at being a high-control religion.

  The only reason I'm cirucmsized is because the congregation leaders told them [my parents] it was necessary.

  What about religion that forbids the use of condoms and birth control pills?

  What about religion that forbids oral sex?
• 

  hillary_step

  proplog2,

  Hillary The argument over the derogatory label "cult" is another issue.

  Linguistic definitions do not have emotion attached to them. I neither view the 'word' cult as derogatory or freindly, it is term that people have struggled to define. The reason that I noted that the United Nations have pronounced on what ingredients makes up a "cult", is that it is a term agreed by World Member Nations of the UN and not by Hassan.

  There is nothing unique about this process as governments, legal bodies and international bodies regularly define such matters. You may pesonally disagree with such definitions, but you will have a very hard job persuading the legal bodies around the world that agreed on this definition. In this, you are a candle in the winds of social time and your viewpoints are quickly extinguished.

  The word "cult" comes from the Latin 'cultus' which invokes the meaning of adoration, worship. As I have noted, this takes in all relgions at some stage or the other of their evolution. The definition needs to be more focused as the centuries have given birth to religions, religious leaders and doctrines from the benign to the malevolent.

  Try to stand aside from your distaste with Steve Hassan and his work and see the bigger picture.

  What would you define as a cult? What would you define as a high-control religion? What would you define as a mainstream religion? What would you define as benign religious beliefs. What would you define as malevolent religious beliefs?

  Once you have reached consensus within yourself, how would you define your views linguistically so that they are useful to society? This is what the world nations did from all the information they had at hand which led to the UN pronouncements. This is what every society attempts do do in order to structure itself to be of some use to its citizens. Anarchy of language will lead to anarchy of behavior.

  HS
• 

  yesidid

  Proplog said:

  JW's don't kill their neighbours in warfare. They would rather die than kill.

  That is an undeniable fact, and it was the teaching that kept me there for some time. I so totally agree with it.

  Why don't people harangue the millions of so called christians that carry on war contrary to their claimed leader Jesus Christ.

  That also is an excellent point, and would stop me from joining the many religions which support war.

  So why does everyone on this discussion board keep condemning nearly 7,000,000 people who have committed themselves to a life of peace.

  Now on this point Proplog, to be fair I think most of the condemnation has nothing to do with the war issue. I can only speak for myself, but my concerns are about their control tactics, glorifying themselves at the expense of Jesus, breaking up families with their shunning, their divisionary teaching that they are the only Christians on the planet and that all others are of the devil, the 1914 rubbish and other nonsensical self glorifying doctrines.

  Again I do agree with you that Christians should not go to war.

  What I am trying to say is that Christianity is not a single issue religion. And yes they’ve got that one right, but many others wrong.

  yesidid
• 

  restrangled

  Most on this board tend to be inclined toward a certain perceived group attitude that keeps them from giving credit where credit is due when it comes to JW's.

  What would JW's like to have credit for? Maybe my experience was unusual, but I get the distinct impression that JW's would like people to believe that they alone are the "chosen" religion, and that they alone have "the truth", that their interpretation of the bible is the best and that they alone are doing God's work on earth.

  So why is it necessary to continue to stroke the egos of this super needy group of meglomaniacs, simply because they adopted the beliefs of the Christadelphians ?

  Whoop ti do...

  R's Hubby
• 

  VoidEater

  Just saw this:

  John Lennon was talking about old religion

  OMG, am I the only one old enough to have grown up with Johnny L? LOL!

  Please, no revisionist history or doctrinal spin. Even the most cursory appraisal of John's life and work puts this point to rest.
• 

  proplog2

  Hillary_Step: People have the right to define words any way they want. That goes for a word like cult. I am quite content with the dictionary's definition. Now, if I wanted to make money in the anti-cult business I would be concerned with adapting that definition so it would enable me to reach the maximum number of clients who might be willing to pay for my services.
• 

  proplog2

  Void eater:
  
  I quoted Lennon because of the simplicity of the solution to war that he presented. I could have just as easily quoted this:
  
  Gonna lay down my sword and shield
  Down by the riverside
  Down by the riverside
  Down by the riverside
  Gonna lay down my sword and shield
  Down by the riverside
  Ain't gonna study war no more.
  
  Actually John Lennon was a little crazy. He even had a religious conversion experience while living at the Dakota. It seems he was fascinated with Pat Robertson and Billy Graham.
  
  Yoko Ono has tried to keep this secret. But you may want to check out these links:
  
  ?http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/june12/34.86.html?start=1
  
  ?http://www.beliefnet.com/story/197/story_19780_1.html
  
  "When he (Lennon) became recognized as a leader, he began to empathize with the person
  Christians referred to as “the Lord.” He wondered whether Christ, like the Beatles, had had
  divinity thrust on him by over-zealous followers. Had Jesus been someone with a gift for
  storytelling, insight into the human condition, and the ability to foretell the future, who had been
  turned into a god figure against his will? John admired his central teachings of love, justice, and
  seeking the kingdom of heaven but felt that Jesus had been co-opted by people with a different
  agenda. He speculated that Jesus’ claim to be the son of God might have been a way of telling us
  that we’re all divine but that most of us don’t recognize it. When asked to nominate his heroes for
  the cover of Sgt. Pepper, John included Jesus, but it was eventually decided not to use this image."
• 

  hillary_step

  proplog2,

  People have the right to define words any way they want. That goes for a word like cult. I am quite content with the dictionary's definition. Now, if I wanted to make money in the anti-cult business I would be concerned with adapting that definition so it would enable me to reach the maximum number of clients who might be willing to pay for my services.

  I am not quite sure where you are going with this argument.

  Are you disagreeing with the UN definition of what constitutes a "cult" and if so, are you suggesting that they have reached international consensus over this definition due to some sort of financial arrangement?

  HS
• 

  proplog2

  Hillary_Step: Quite honestly I haven't read any UN definition of a cult. You refer to such a document but I haven't found it on the internet. Please post it.
• 

  proplog2

  ?So far most of the responses to this thread have been negative. I expected that. The greatest scourge mankind has had to deal with is war. It really is “good for nothing”. Without war every human on the face of the earth could live their three score and ten years in happiness. The resources used to protect national boundaries for thousands of years could have moved mankind to rare levels of achievement. There would be no pollution. People might even live much longer. Cancer would be cured along with a host of other diseases. Mankind would be a true success. Love your neighbor was Jesus’ primary command. This means that you don’t kill your neighbor. How blind do you have to be to ignore the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses are exemplary in this respect? How jaded do you have to be to ignore the fact that all the mainstream Christian religions have brought horrible suffering on the world because of their bloody wars? There might be a case (although I don’t really believe that to be the case) if Christians were defending themselves from Moslems, Hindus, and Buddhists. But, these horrible wars were Christians fighting Christians. If JW’s are evil, in spite of their refusal to kill people in wars, what does that say about all the other main-stream Christian religions.