Leah Remini to tackle Jehovah's Witnesses

[devildavid]

I've already been through this time and again. These people insisted they DID see something extraordinary. That's the whole point. If you won't accept the basic facts then no use talking about it.

You only have claims, not basic facts. If your faith depends on a fact it is not faith at all. It's like me saying I have faith in the sun.

 

[devildavid]

Nobody said they believed it was false. The point is that they died because they insisted it was true, that they had seen the risen Christ. That leaves you with three possible conclusions:

1. They saw what they said they saw and were telling the truth.
2. They made it up out of whole cloth and died knowing what they made up was false.
3. They were somehow deluded into thinking they saw and talked to the risen Christ.

It can only be one of these three. The Jim Jones thing is completely irrelevant. Those people killed themselves. I'm not sure why examples of suicide keep being used as comparison to the martyrdom of the apostles. They are completely invalid.

There are more than three choices but you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

 

[veritas1]

You only have claims, not basic facts. If your faith depends on a fact it is not faith at all. It's like me saying I have faith in the sun.

My faith is in Christ but why do I have faith in Him? Because of what the gospels tell me and because of what the people who made those claims did afterwards.

 

[veritas1]

There are more than three choices but you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

No, there are not. You need to tell me why either #2 or #3 are the correct one.

 

[devildavid]

My faith is in Christ but why do I have faith in Him? Because of what the gospels tell me and because of what the people who made those claims did afterwards.

So you are no different than the followers of other religions who make the same exact claims.

 

[devildavid]

No, there are not. You need to tell me why either #2 or #3 are the correct one.

You need to be able to expand your list to include more nuanced reasons. Until you do, I am not forced to choose from your intellectually limited list.

 

[OscarLevant]

No, it's very true. It's the only sensical explanation of the beginning of the universe.

The universe is so infinitely vast, and the mind is so infinitesimally small compared to it.

What are the odds a human mind can get it right about the nature of existence and the universe?

Infinitesimally small, I would say.

 

[Angel]

The universe is so infinitely vast, and the mind is so infinitesimally small compared to it.

What are the odds a human mind can get it right about the nature of existence and the universe?

Infinitesimally small, I would say.

The infinitely vast universe you're kvelling over is in the mind.


Namaste

 

[OscarLevant]

God never "came into being" (was not created). He has always existed, since before time existed.

You can't grasp how the universe began, so you create a God, ie, God did it.

But, since you can't Grasp how God began, why are you comfortable with God having no Beginning, but not the universe?

The whole premise is, if you find a watch in the desert, someone made it. Therefore, there must be a God.

But, put God as the watch in the Desert, using that logic, shouldln't something or someone created God?


See, the idea that God is creator of the universe is a half baked solution.


Why not just say life is a mystery, and be happy with that?



"Life is a mystery, but not a mystery to be solved, it's a mystery to be lived" --- mystic proverb

 

[Angel]

Returning to the topic...

The OP​

Leah Remini to tackle Jehovah's Witnesses in new special following 'Kevin Can Wait' cancellation | Fox News

Leah Remini reportedly has a new unscripted special at A&E in the works that will tackle the intricacies of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Well, this could be fun to watch. :mrgreen:

While not quite on the same level of "you've got to be kidding me" as the Scientologists, there's plenty of crazy nonsense that can be exposed when it comes to JW's.

Well here, have some more Leah:

Muscleheaded Narcissism in Media Crusade Against Religion
Delirious Dawkins Devotees Dance Dervish​

 

[CLAX1911]

Returning to the topic...

The OP




Muscleheaded Narcissism in Media Crusade Against Religion
Delirious Dawkins Devotees Dance Dervish​

I don't agree that Remini is attacking religion. At least not wrongfully. Scientologists are absolutely a cult. JWs share a lot with them.

It isn't an attack, it is an evaluation. one that really needs to take place. you should really read about some of their practices.

 

[Angel]

I don't agree that Remini is attacking religion. At least not wrongfully. Scientologists are absolutely a cult. JWs share a lot with them.

It isn't an attack, it is an evaluation. one that really needs to take place. you should really read about some of their practices.

Scientology really isn't a religion, it's a sort of sci-fi 12-step club for losers, and as a longtime member of that club Remini has a certain authority to "evaluate" the club, but I'm against persecution of any real religion even under the euphemism "evaluation" and we, you and I, as Christians, must not make common cause with the New Atheist cheerleaders encouraging religious persecution.

 

[CLAX1911]

Scientology really isn't a religion, it's a sort of sci-fi 12-step club for losers, and as a longtime member of that club Remini has a certain authority to "evaluate" the club, but I'm against persecution of any real religion even under the euphemism "evaluation" and we, you and I, as Christians, must not make common cause with the New Atheist cheerleaders encouraging religious persecution.

Will Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a real religion I mean if you can say Scientology isn't a real religion I can say Jehovah's Witnesses aren't either it's kind of a 12-step Club for people that have no will of Their Own.

And pointing out flaws within a very flawed Club is Not persecution.

 

[Angel]

Will Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a real religion I mean if you can say Scientology isn't a real religion I can say Jehovah's Witnesses aren't either it's kind of a 12-step Club for people that have no will of Their Own.

And pointing out flaws within a very flawed Club is Not persecution.

We can say anything we like, I suppose, and if you wish to equate a 150-year-old Bible-based denomination of Christianity with a pop-psychology-cum-science-fiction movement cynically designed to get tax breaks, then of course you can. I think the comparison is way off base and out of line and what's more plays right into the hands of religion's New Atheist critics.

The pedigree of Scientology:

Hubbard outlined plans for setting up a chain of "Spiritual Guidance Centers" charging customers $500 for twenty-four hours of auditing ("That is real money ... Charge enough and we'd be swamped."). He wrote:

"I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion, we couldn't get worse public opinion than we have had or have less customers with what we've got to sell. A religious charter would be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick. But I sure could make it stick."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

 

[devildavid]

We can say anything we like, I suppose, and if you wish to equate a 150-year-old Bible-based denomination of Christianity with a pop-psychology-cum-science-fiction movement cynically designed to get tax breaks, then of course you can. I think the comparison is way off base and out of line and what's more plays right into the hands of religion's New Atheist critics.

The pedigree of Scientology:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

You know nothing of the motivations of the founders of the JW cult. Being bible based does not automatically give legitimacy to anything. Cynicism wears many masks and con men have often used god to gain the confidence of their marks.

 

[Angel]

You know nothing of the motivations of the founders of the JW cult. Being bible based does not automatically give legitimacy to anything. Cynicism wears many masks and con men have often used god to gain the confidence of their marks.

... and what's more plays right into the hands of religion's New Atheist critics....

QED:roll:

 

[Daisy]

You know nothing of the motivations of the founders of the JW cult. Being bible based does not automatically give legitimacy to anything. Cynicism wears many masks and con men have often used god to gain the confidence of their marks.

Guess what...neither do you...

What is it you told me in this very thread? lol...

You don't get to define what a true christian is. If you claim he is not a christian, I know he would strongly differ with you.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...ckle-jehovahs-witnesses-9.html#post1068675461

 

[Angel]

Leah Remini to tackle Jehovah's Witnesses in new special following 'Kevin Can Wait' cancellation | Fox News

Well, this could be fun to watch. :mrgreen:

While not quite on the same level of "you've got to be kidding me" as the Scientologists, there's plenty of crazy nonsense that can be exposed when it comes to JW's.

Muscleheaded Narcissism in Media Crusade Against Religion
Delirious Dawkins Devotees Dance Dervish​

Oy! I meant to write

Narcissistic Musclehead in Media Campaign Against Religion​

Then one of my cats jumped up onto my computer desk, stretched, and stretched out between me and the keyboard.
Well, all thought of Bimbo Remini flew clear out of my head!
Mea Culpa
Or perhaps it ought to be Felix Culpa, yes?


Namaste

 

[devildavid]

Guess what...neither do you...

What is it you told me in this very thread? lol...



https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...ckle-jehovahs-witnesses-9.html#post1068675461

And I stand by that because christianity is make believe and no one has a monopoly on it. You can claim to be anything you want. It still doesn't tell me who you are. Only your actions do. Religion is just a lifestyle choice, much like the style of clothes you choose to wear.

Angel claims to know that the JW founders can't possibly be cynics just because they used the bible. I say they can be cynics who label themselves christians. The pope could be as well, who knows? The label christian is meaningless, but you still don't get to decide who can apply it to themselves.

 

[Angel]

...Angel claims to know that the JW founders can't possibly be cynics just because they used the bible. I say they can be cynics who label themselves christians. The pope could be as well, who knows? The label christian is meaningless, but you still don't get to decide who can apply it to themselves.

...and what's more plays right into the hands of religion's New Atheist critics.....

QED:roll:

 

[OscarLevant]

The infinitely vast universe you're kvelling over is in the mind.


Namaste

Which, compared to the physical universe, is infinitesimally small. My point stands.

 

[Angel]

The universe is so infinitely vast, and the mind is so infinitesimally small compared to it.

What are the odds a human mind can get it right about the nature of existence and the universe?

Infinitesimally small, I would say.

The infinitely vast universe you're kvelling over is in the mind.


Namaste

Which, compared to the physical universe, is infinitesimally small. My point stands.

Your point stands on the legs of my point.

 

[CLAX1911]

We can say anything we like, I suppose, and if you wish to equate a 150-year-old Bible-based denomination of Christianity with a pop-psychology-cum-science-fiction movement cynically designed to get tax breaks, then of course you can. I think the comparison is way off base and out of line and what's more plays right into the hands of religion's New Atheist critics.

The pedigree of Scientology:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

You can think the comparison is way off but the cult is really quite sinister. I wouldn't think a Christian would want to defend it.

Maybe you just dont know.

 

[Daisy]

You can think the comparison is way off but the cult is really quite sinister. I wouldn't think a Christian would want to defend it.

Maybe you just dont know.

Sour grapes, huh...

 

[Angel]

You can think the comparison is way off but the cult is really quite sinister. I wouldn't think a Christian would want to defend it.

Maybe you just dont know.

I'm sorry we can't agree on this, but I'm glad we can each think the other way off base without resorting to recrimination. Speaking only for myself, I would say that I am inclined to defend all Christian denominations against attack, and for the obvious reason, but as a result of the irrational New Atheist assault on religion generally I have come to feel protective of all religions, that is to say, all genuine religions, religions generated from connection to Ultimate Reality, that is, Spiritual Reality. I'm a Roman Catholic, and presumably Roman Catholic Ecumenism would lend support my former point about defending denominational Christianity from attack. As for my readiness to come to the defense of all religions, that's the philosopher speaking.