as a kid i would often be repremanded by my parents for putting a poster of a popstar or other contemporary celebrity which i lended my appreciation to.
but what confused me is the much disaproval of my popstars when every time we sat down for dinner we would be watched by a framed illustration of jesus that was produced by the society.. now that i'm older and i visited my parent's house i saw the same photograph, sat proudly on the dining wall demonstrating the 'strong faith' they still have.
reminded of my childhood concerns i sneakly did some research on the watchtower cd and discovered this passage in reference to idols:.
Do you think Jehovah is jealous that Jesus has all the portraits in the WTBS illustrations and that Jehovah is just a blank outline of an old man?
Also, why is it that they find it perfectly acceptable to interpret what Jesus looks like (mostly white?) when they say we can't imagine what God would like, else we'd DIE! Except again, he is shown as a white old man.
as a kid i would often be repremanded by my parents for putting a poster of a popstar or other contemporary celebrity which i lended my appreciation to.
but what confused me is the much disaproval of my popstars when every time we sat down for dinner we would be watched by a framed illustration of jesus that was produced by the society.. now that i'm older and i visited my parent's house i saw the same photograph, sat proudly on the dining wall demonstrating the 'strong faith' they still have.
reminded of my childhood concerns i sneakly did some research on the watchtower cd and discovered this passage in reference to idols:.
Haha you made some great points Nephilim, there really is no point in 'reasoning' with the JW beliefs not least because they are 'reasoning' on the scriptures rather than what we consider to be 'reason' in the modern enlightenment sense. Considering that the scriptures are completely open for debate everyone could go back and forth with the argument on this one, especially since it probably comes down to one of the many many mysterious 'grey areas' that JWs stand behind.
Nevertheless, what IS interesting is the comparisons made by the WTBS with contemporary images of popstars in that they are held up in the form of posters etc. to be immitated, to become just like that celebrity and in effect, worshiping them. Somehow it reminds me of a certain male icon the witnesses are trying to become just like... Surely by having a picture of the very man your attempting to 'walk in the footsteps' of would be considered a form of idolatry?
as a kid i would often be repremanded by my parents for putting a poster of a popstar or other contemporary celebrity which i lended my appreciation to.
but what confused me is the much disaproval of my popstars when every time we sat down for dinner we would be watched by a framed illustration of jesus that was produced by the society.. now that i'm older and i visited my parent's house i saw the same photograph, sat proudly on the dining wall demonstrating the 'strong faith' they still have.
reminded of my childhood concerns i sneakly did some research on the watchtower cd and discovered this passage in reference to idols:.
It seems that I'm not the only one, a couple of friends mentioned similar circumstances. Not to mention one particular kingdom hall and assembly hall which had many illustrations hanging on the wall.
Burntheships, I see perhaps what your saying especially since the organisation makes it an interpretation of images based on worship, but surely the connotations of hanging these illustrations on the wall alone is a form of worship? The first sentence from the scripture seems to ban all Godly interpretations, but then again also earthly ones.
as a kid i would often be repremanded by my parents for putting a poster of a popstar or other contemporary celebrity which i lended my appreciation to.
but what confused me is the much disaproval of my popstars when every time we sat down for dinner we would be watched by a framed illustration of jesus that was produced by the society.. now that i'm older and i visited my parent's house i saw the same photograph, sat proudly on the dining wall demonstrating the 'strong faith' they still have.
reminded of my childhood concerns i sneakly did some research on the watchtower cd and discovered this passage in reference to idols:.
As a kid I would often be repremanded by my parents for putting a poster of a popstar or other contemporary celebrity which I lended my appreciation to. But what confused me is the much disaproval of my popstars when every time we sat down for dinner we would be watched by a framed illustration of Jesus that was produced by the society.
Now that I'm older and I visited my parent's house I saw the same photograph, sat proudly on the dining wall demonstrating the 'strong faith' they still have. Reminded of my childhood concerns I sneakly did some research on the watchtower CD and discovered this passage in reference to idols:
“You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion.”—Exodus 20:4, 5.
But as the orginisation clearly points out is, "God’s twofold prohibition: First, his people were not to make images for worship, and second, they were not to “bow down to them” or serve them." Now does this mean making images of any kind, earth or heaven are forbidden? They seem to recognise a difference between the image itself, and then worship...
My question is, has anyone else been concerned over this? What line is drawn by the society at the production of earthly or godly images? Have you seen assembly halls like the ones I used to visit which had bible scenes in every direction? Does this passage only apply to pictures on walls, or do images in watchtowers and other publications count?
Just incase you needed some imagery, here's some I thought demonstrated my point:
i was just casting my mind back to when i would accompany my parents on the door-to-door work and remember that a considerable amount of return visits/calls were recent immigrants to the country who spoke little english.
once they found the country of origin they would immediately order literature in that language, despite that sometimes these people were just happy to read anything since they spoke little english.. it just reinforces my beliefs that they really prey on the most vulnerable members in society, maybe we should pamplet immigrants at airports to protect them from these people!.
anyone have similar experiences?.
I was just casting my mind back to when I would accompany my parents on the door-to-door work and remember that a considerable amount of return visits/calls were recent immigrants to the country who spoke little English. Once they found the country of origin they would immediately order literature in that language, despite that sometimes these people were just happy to read anything since they spoke little English.
It just reinforces my beliefs that they really prey on the most vulnerable members in society, maybe we should pamplet immigrants at airports to protect them from these people!
Anyone have similar experiences?
just for fun i decided to have a quick look on the wt website and the first article was of abortion and why it is wrong... http://www.watchtower.org/e/200906/article_01.htm.
what really suprised me is the lack of any scriptual support that the religion used here, normally persuasive arguments are flooded with verses and religious examples.
linked with this, i think it's interesting that so many "studies" here are used to support accounts of mental trauma from abortion when i was under the impression that the wto was far from scientific.
There is a Question from readers about abortion in the 15th March 1975 Watchtower pages 191-192. In it they cite Exodus 21:22-25 which implies if you take a life even of an unborn child then the punishment is death.
I bet that reader wished they never asked! Do you remember how they reconciled not putting people to death now?
just for fun i decided to have a quick look on the wt website and the first article was of abortion and why it is wrong... http://www.watchtower.org/e/200906/article_01.htm.
what really suprised me is the lack of any scriptual support that the religion used here, normally persuasive arguments are flooded with verses and religious examples.
linked with this, i think it's interesting that so many "studies" here are used to support accounts of mental trauma from abortion when i was under the impression that the wto was far from scientific.
Just for fun I decided to have a quick look on the WT website and the first article was of abortion and why it is wrong... http://www.watchtower.org/e/200906/article_01.htm
What really suprised me is the lack of any scriptual support that the religion used here, normally persuasive arguments are flooded with verses and religious examples. Linked with this, I think it's interesting that so many "studies" here are used to support accounts of mental trauma from abortion when I was under the impression that the WTO was far from scientific. By reason and studies we can also argue for the big bang and evolution, so what type of scientific research falls within the guidelines for the WT to agree with?
What is strange is that we can only assume that trauma from abortion is socially constructed, it's still heavily stigmatised and ofcourse people are going to suffer mentally from it. The misconception from the religion is that this is some kind of "natural" response, when in fact this is something that can change! The first example in the article is horrific in that it shows the male dominance in the religion, "oh woe is the man that doesn't have to carry the baby or care for it all since that's what Eve was put on this earth to do." No mention of how rape victims may have even more trauma from looking at a child which is the manifestation of what happened.
This got me very annoyed as you can see but please offer some comments or things you noticed about the article. Please also contribute any religious support the WTBT$ may have used in other articles.
i mean not just in russia but world wide, wouldn't this be a great oppotunity to educate the public about this cult????.
hint hint people with media contacts....
Now that's persuasive.
om
---
It's not that I don't agree with how you see the religion, just that your using the wrong word for it. A 'cult' is a group of people who share knowledge/beliefs/practices to enrich the experience in the 'real world E.g. Yoga, Trancendental Meditation.'Wheras a 'sect' often removes individuals from the 'real world' and believes that they are the only 'true' way of life. E.g. Wako, JWs.
i thought i'd introduce myself, i haven't been to the faux-truth in about 6 years now so i'm merely a small child to the 'real world.
' i grew up in said religion and attended two english speaking congregations and lastly a sign language congregation in britain.
i think this gives away my identity to some friends i have on here ;).
: I'm not really the type for moral panic hyperbole (I.E. You wont see me on the child abuse forum much).
Uh, what? Is that how you see child abuse, as "moral panic hyperbole?"
"Daddy! An elder just RAPED me!"
"Shut up. It's just moral panic hyperbole."
Farkel
---
On the contrary, I don't think child abuse is in any way justifyable or non-existent. A moral panic is a situation where a number of cases of a social problem occur and a particular group (and later the media) create an argument that this "increasing" social problem leading to the breakdown of a moral society. The problem with doing this is it not only often exagerates the amount of a particular social problem hapening, but it stereotypes one group of people to be responsible when they are often not. E.g. Panic about rock n roll, black muggers, gays and aids.
It would be wrong to assume that child abuse is a direct result of Jehovah's Witness membership, when the rates of child abuse would generally be the same throughout many religious organisations or non-believers. Therefore creating forums specifically for child abuse and not any other social problem such as women's/gays oppression in the religion would just liegitimise this viewpoint.
Regardless, my point is not to infer a condonance of child abuse but rather not to stirr panics about JWs breaking down societal morals regarding child abuse... I hope this all makes sense.
i mean not just in russia but world wide, wouldn't this be a great oppotunity to educate the public about this cult????.
hint hint people with media contacts....
It's actually quite sad that the JWs have been banned, we all know that they 'prophesy' that their religion will be banned at Armageddon. Surely this would create more strength in their beliefs and therefore produce counter-productive legislation. Not to mention that as we all know, they are a minority and an un-popular one at that! Who would we be to deny them the freedom of belief and lifestyle, regardless of what we think of it. Plenty of minorities have tried to be silenced in the past and think about how we feel about them now?
The newspapers may not cover the story just because it doesn't quite qualify for 'moral panic,' nor hold the interest in many readers since they wouldn't understand who they were anyway.
You must all stop calling them a 'cult' though, the Jehovah's Witnesses are a sect, there is a big difference in the study of theology and sociology. The word cult has just been thrown around by the media to stirr up emotive responses. Don't always believe what you read, surely we'd all be aware of that now ;)
