I guess you can tie Jehovahs, and any other organized religion with this:
"IF your religion makes you think any people are spiritually inferior to others OR...
IF your science makes you think some class of people mentally inferior to others OR...
IF your politics makes you think some people should be politically inferior to others...
THEN you are doing it wrong and you need to rethink your philosophy from first principals." (Grabbed from YouTube)
Do you agree with this philosophy?
Stop to think: Why does the belief or opinion that YOU happen to subscribe to ALWAYS seems to be only one that's 'right'? And therefor everyone who believes differently is always 'wrong'. It's funny how a person's 'God' always JUST SO HAPPENS to support their views and prejudices. Talk about self-centered!! I'd LOVE to hear: 'I'm a Baptist but I really think the Catholics' view of God is where it's at'.
The inherent narcissism of the "Christian" belief system is its chief deterrent to those wanting a delusion-free existence.
"Jesus noticed little old me - He died for me; He loves me; He blesses me; He answers my prayers...and on and on and on.
If true, it seems to explain the absence of His power to transform troubles in the real, wider world beyond the narrow confines of self-obsession and wound-licking.
Christianity - the perfect belief system for a mindset glued to self-importance in the universal scheme of things.
NAVYTOWN , there are so many cross denominational organisations now . In the town where I live we have regular meetings of all the clergy of every church ( except of course JWs , who would be welcome ) to talk about how, by pooling resources and knowledge and gifts, the united churches can help the people of the area . In very practical ways such as debt counselling , food banks etc . Barriers are being broken all the time .
United services and social events . We are all Christians and can learn from one another and help each other .
looter - nicely put
"In the town where I live we have regular meetings of all the clergy of every church"
That is cool; wish I lived in your town.
The JW's oppose that idea on every level; they won't cooperate with 'Babylon', and they don't believe in charitable works by members.
There's a vast difference between thinking someone or whatever belief is wrong and actually and absolutely being wrong.
Whatever category religion, science or politics, there will always be argument, debate, discussion.
But to fly in the face of proven evidence is to be wrong and many deluded are in this category citing faith as their reasoning.
I've posted this here before, but I think it's somewhat relavent to the thread topic so I'll put it in here again:
Pretty entertaining TED talk about being wrong, with a different outlook on how we should feel about being wrong.
navyton agree about that. One of the many reasons why denominations have to oppose other religions is because they want to fully control their sheep. It's sick.
As for the text, agree wholeheartedly. Specifically jehovahs Witnesses think any person not in their religion is 'inferior' of some sort. If you asked them about that feeling they wouldn't say they feel like that but that they feel they can 'help' a person out just by telling them the message. When really they only associate with people in their religion and usually don't give non-witnesses a chance.
I disagree. What you quoted is idealistic and not realistic.
Consider, for example, this part: "IF your science makes you think some class of people mentally inferior to others... THEN you are doing it wrong."
Actually, science tells us that it is entirely possible that one class of people could be mentally inferior to others. I'm not saying that any class of humans now existing is mentally inferior to others, but I am saying that it is possible (in fact, well within the realm of possiblity) that one could be.
Whoever said what's quoted above might as well not even engage in science if he's not open-minded and willing to accept what science tells him. He would be approaching science with bias, with prejudice. He would already have his answer. Why would he need the science? What if legitimate science told him that it was possible that, for example, an isolated group of people could have smaller brains, lower neuron density, etc.? Would he just say it's bad science because he doesn't agree with what the science tells him because it's not politically correct?