• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leah Remini to tackle Jehovah's Witnesses


And your evidence that there is reason to investigate the Jehovah Witnesses is what? FYI, I would object to anybody investigating even YOU without some justification for doing that even if you don't have a problem with it. I think probably the huge lion's share of Americans would have a problem with being put on television in a series expose' without getting permission to do so first.

There is good reason to investigate the JW organization. Just as there was and is good reason to investigate the Catholic Church. If these organizations have nothing to hide, an expose will not harm them.
 
Oh well then. Using that logic we should investigate you and/or your friends/family and/or your church or club or group because you might be abusing children or something.

I wonder when we stopped being a country that valued individual choices, liberty, and personal privacy and started being one that it's okay to investigate anybody you don't like just in case you might be able to find a crime committed somewhere?

This is an organization, not individuals. And if you are suspected of something, you do get investigated. Especially organizations that hold power over their members.
 
Yes, yes it is a common bible phrase. It doesn't mean that it DOESN'T get used as a weapon of bigotry against non-Christians. That gets done all the time. Some are more aggressive about it, and then say 'Accept Jesus as your lord and savior or burn forever in Hell'. Others are more passive aggressive about it.

I've never had anybody say anything like this to me. Well, no, I take that back. Once in college a friend pretty much said that those who didn't accept Christ would burn. He was 19. He did grow up. So once in nine years of college and never as an adult.
 
Y'all get up to murderous nonsense from time to time.

So there's an element of self defense.

Oh, yes, murderous nonsense right here at DP, thus justifying proselytizing as self-defense. I can't say that I understand the compulsion.
 
Does this apply to gay people too?

I'd say it applies to each one of us because as individuals, we all have personal autonomy. What a silly question.
 
I've never had anybody say anything like this to me. Well, no, I take that back. Once in college a friend pretty much said that those who didn't accept Christ would burn. He was 19. He did grow up. So once in nine years of college and never as an adult.

For a person who has said that on this forum, look at Logicman. As a non-Christian, I have heard it a number of times. You probably haven't heard that , because you are Christian, so it won't be directed at you. I have heard that, and heard Jew be called 'Christ Killers'. The people who still use it the 'burn in hell' tend to be more fringe now than during my college years. They are still out there though.

Look at Mel Gibson's antisemitic rant at his traffic stop for example. Antisemitic incidences rose 60% in 2017.. well all hate crimes did.
 
I see you are unequipped to engage in serious discussion or answer questions challenging your beliefs. The bottom line is that my position rests on faith and yours rests on an unprovable assumption. Therefore, the difference is not what you make it out to be. I'd say that physics just popping into existence is pretty magical.

The idea of a 'god' able to suspend the laws of physics on a whim is inherently improbable. As improbable as it is possible to be. For it to be taken seriously overwhelming evidence would need to be produced. But none is forthcoming; what instead we have is 'faith', which is no more then willful sell-delusion.

Last word: it is the deists who advance the 'unprovable assumption', not the atheists. If someone says there is a 12 ft tall man with four heads down the road eating bicylces it is not the responsibility of his listeners to attempt to prove him wrong - though it might be argued that they have some duty to seek medical care for him.
 
For a person who has said that on this forum, look at Logicman. As a non-Christian, I have heard it a number of times.

So what? Jesus talked about it quite a bit to warn people. I'm not going to sugar coat anything for you.
 
So what? Jesus talked about it quite a bit to warn people. I'm not going to sugar coat anything for you.

I don't think we have much idea what Jesus talked about. All we have are reports of dubious authenticity written long after his death.
 
I've never had anybody say anything like this to me. Well, no, I take that back. Once in college a friend pretty much said that those who didn't accept Christ would burn. He was 19. He did grow up. So once in nine years of college and never as an adult.

It's Christian doctrine, expressed in its simplest terms. Your experience speaks to how extensively Christians are sugar-coating their beliefs. 'Accept Jesus as your lord and savior or burn forever in Hell' is as obvious as saying water is wet. If someone wants to say that expressing doctrine in its simplest terms isn't effective, perhaps. One may as well disband Christianity if 'Accept Jesus as your lord and savior or burn forever in Hell' is denied.
 
Oh, yes, murderous nonsense right here at DP, thus justifying proselytizing as self-defense. I can't say that I understand the compulsion.

Christians have slaughtered many in the name of god throughout history. Subjugated a bunch more.

They constantly try to legislate the rules of their faith for all of us.

They have earned being watched.

I'm sure some of them are good people.
 
Wrong again...a good friend of mine retired from the fire dept. in the town I grew up in...

You did not answer the question, did you?

In California, where I grew up, there is an oath involved to uphold the constitution. I posted it.

Which is a no no for jw's. Its why they don't recite the pledge or the anthem. No one above jahweh.

So that would be why I was told, in the early seventies, that I couldn't be a paramedic and be a jw.

Do jw's become firefighters in California?

And if so how do they get around the oath?

That was the question posed, which you did not answer.

And you should have to defend calling me a liar.

Which you did.
 
For a person who has said that on this forum, look at Logicman.

I was talking about real life rather than this board. You know that, and you also know that it's entirely likely on a public message board for some to behave in ways they wouldn't dare in real life.

As a non-Christian, I have heard it a number of times. You probably haven't heard that , because you are Christian, so it won't be directed at you. I have heard that, and heard Jew be called 'Christ Killers'. The people who still use it the 'burn in hell' tend to be more fringe now than during my college years. They are still out there though.

Yes, and "fringe" is a generous term. How many people in real life accost others and rudely harangue them or tell them they're going to burn in hell? You say you've heard this, but have you ever been told this? Have you ever been told one-on-one and right to your face that Jews are "Christ Killers" or that you are?

My understanding is that you were reared in the Jewish faith. How is it that because I'm a Christian, I probably haven't heard thus-and-such whereas you as a Jew have heard anti-Semitic remarks? How does that work? ;)

Look at Mel Gibson's antisemitic rant at his traffic stop for example. Antisemitic incidences rose 60% in 2017.. well all hate crimes did.

No, let's not look at Mel Gibson, who is an atypical example--a celebrity with obviously terrible "issues" (and then there is his father...). This is like trying to make something that Charlie Sheen says or does typical. On the face of it, it's not.

Yes, appallingly, anti-Semitism is on the rise, with a 57% increase from 2016 to 2017 in the United States. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/sunday-review/anti-semitism-american-jews.html

In Europe in the same period, reported incidents fell by 9% "and by almost 50% compared with the 2006-14 average--but there was a notable increase in harassment and abuse, according to a survey published by the Kantor Center." From the Guardian:

The report highlights a strengthening of the extreme right in some European counties, “accompanied by slogans and symbols reminiscent of the 1930s” and “the intensity of the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed in a variety of ways [...] especially on street demonstrations”. It says this may explain a discrepancy between the levels of fear among European Jews and the actual number of incidents.

“Expressions of classic traditional antisemitism are back and, for example, the term ‘Jew’ has become a swear word,” it says. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/11/traditional-antisemitism-is-back-global-study-finds
 
It's Christian doctrine, expressed in its simplest terms. Your experience speaks to how extensively Christians are sugar-coating their beliefs. 'Accept Jesus as your lord and savior or burn forever in Hell' is as obvious as saying water is wet. If someone wants to say that expressing doctrine in its simplest terms isn't effective, perhaps. One may as well disband Christianity if 'Accept Jesus as your lord and savior or burn forever in Hell' is denied.

We're discussing behaviors here, not beliefs.
 
Christians have slaughtered many in the name of god throughout history. Subjugated a bunch more.

They constantly try to legislate the rules of their faith for all of us.

They have earned being watched.

I'm sure some of them are good people.

That's nice. Also fresh. :roll:
 
We're discussing behaviors here, not beliefs.

Interesting perspective. How often does one approach people, exclaiming, "Water is wet!"?
 
Interesting perspective. How often does one approach people, exclaiming, "Water is wet!"?

I wouldn't know. Unless one is lost and looking for directions, how often does one approach anybody, period?
 
I don't think we have much idea what Jesus talked about. All we have are reports of dubious authenticity written long after his death.

Tsk tsk...

How long after Jesus died (and was resurrected) do you say the Gospels and epistles were written?
 
You did not answer the question, did you?

In California, where I grew up, there is an oath involved to uphold the constitution. I posted it.

Which is a no no for jw's. Its why they don't recite the pledge or the anthem. No one above jahweh.

So that would be why I was told, in the early seventies, that I couldn't be a paramedic and be a jw.

Do jw's become firefighters in California?

And if so how do they get around the oath?

That was the question posed, which you did not answer.

And you should have to defend calling me a liar.

Which you did.

If the shoe fits...
 
I was talking about real life rather than this board. You know that, and you also know that it's entirely likely on a public message board for some to behave in ways they wouldn't dare in real life.



Yes, and "fringe" is a generous term. How many people in real life accost others and rudely harangue them or tell them they're going to burn in hell? You say you've heard this, but have you ever been told this? Have you ever been told one-on-one and right to your face that Jews are "Christ Killers" or that you are?

My understanding is that you were reared in the Jewish faith. How is it that because I'm a Christian, I probably haven't heard thus-and-such whereas you as a Jew have heard anti-Semitic remarks? How does that work? ;)



No, let's not look at Mel Gibson, who is an atypical example--a celebrity with obviously terrible "issues" (and then there is his father...). This is like trying to make something that Charlie Sheen says or does typical. On the face of it, it's not.

Yes, appallingly, anti-Semitism is on the rise, with a 57% increase from 2016 to 2017 in the United States. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/sunday-review/anti-semitism-american-jews.html

In Europe in the same period, reported incidents fell by 9% "and by almost 50% compared with the 2006-14 average--but there was a notable increase in harassment and abuse, according to a survey published by the Kantor Center." From the Guardian:

The report highlights a strengthening of the extreme right in some European counties, “accompanied by slogans and symbols reminiscent of the 1930s” and “the intensity of the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed in a variety of ways [...] especially on street demonstrations”. It says this may explain a discrepancy between the levels of fear among European Jews and the actual number of incidents.

“Expressions of classic traditional antisemitism are back and, for example, the term ‘Jew’ has become a swear word,” it says. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/11/traditional-antisemitism-is-back-global-study-finds

Sorry, but this board is part of real life. In fact, the online reality allows people to express their true feelings without fear of repercussions. Most prejudiced people do not express their feelings directly to those they are prejudiced against, but share it with those who do not belong to those groups. I have heard plenty of this in my life.
 
Sorry, but this board is part of real life. In fact, the online reality allows people to express their true feelings without fear of repercussions. Most prejudiced people do not express their feelings directly to those they are prejudiced against, but share it with those who do not belong to those groups. I have heard plenty of this in my life.

Online reality also allows pitiable losers to put on Superman's cape. Luckily, most people are their authentic selves online, but anonymity inspires the pathetic cowards too.
 
The idea of a 'god' able to suspend the laws of physics on a whim is inherently improbable. As improbable as it is possible to be. For it to be taken seriously overwhelming evidence would need to be produced. But none is forthcoming; what instead we have is 'faith', which is no more then willful sell-delusion.

Last word: it is the deists who advance the 'unprovable assumption', not the atheists. If someone says there is a 12 ft tall man with four heads down the road eating bicylces it is not the responsibility of his listeners to attempt to prove him wrong - though it might be argued that they have some duty to seek medical care for him.

The evidence comes from the New Testament accounts. Of course, faith is required but that these were historical figures and that the general outline of events occurred, is indisputable. The only thing disputable is whether the miracles, and in particular the resurrection, took place. That cannot be scientifically proven but the subsequent events give every indication that the people who witnessed these events were truthful. People don't suffer intense persecution and death for something they know to be a lie. That flies in the face of everything we know about human nature yet that is what the disciples and other early Christians endured.

It is interesting that nobody questions the existence or life of Alexander the Great even though no contemporary records exist and the first known accounts were written 400 years after his death. The first gospels were written within 50 years if the life of Christ, most likely as early as 30 years. well within the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses. It is not the lack of documentary records that is the problem. It is what those records say happened.

I have assumed that the NT accounts are accurate historical records and this gives me my faith. If the truth of these records is an unprovable assumption it is no more so than the assumption that God doesn't exist simply because you haven't seen Him yet. People hadn't seen bacteria either but the assumption, based on evidence, was that it existed. Same for atoms and lots of other things. The atheist argument isn't really that God doesn't exist. It is that they haven't seem Him for themselves. That same type of skepticism was held by people who thought disease came from noxious vapors.

Lastly, I asked you if God could suspend the laws of physics if He exists. You said that God's existence was improbable but that was not the question. So, what is the answer?
 
Back
Top Bottom