• 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

Elvira said:
Sour grapes, huh...
Click to expand...

I never was a Jehovah's Witness but I think it's horrible that they Harbor and protect child molesters I think it's awful that they tell family members to shun they're children if they don't conform to the Jehovah's Witness way. I think it's despicable that they try to Dominate and isolate their members.

I wouldn't call it sour grapes I would call it compassion.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay so you defends the "Branch Davidians," "Christ Our Righteousness Church," "the Warren Jeffs pedophile cult," and the Westboro Baptist Church cult?

I'm a Christian to okay and I don't like that people attack religion and I certainly understand that people do I'll defend Catholicism Methodist's Jewish people, but I won't defend cults they give Christianity a bad name they provide the fodder for criticism.

So I will defend good Christian religions I don't consider a religion and I use that term loosely that brainwashes its people covers up child molestation it didn't eyes medical treatment to dying children a good thing I won't defend it it is Despicable. I don't care if they call themselves Christian.

Take for example the Christ Our Righteousness Church the sex cult their behavior is deplorable even though they say they read the Bible and practice it.

Why would you defend such despicable things do you not understand people that can read the Bible and get truly evil and wicked meanings out of it?
 
CLAX1911 said:
That's what I asked you.

You said you defend people that claim they follow the Bible.
Click to expand...
I don't think I said that. I said I'm "inclined" to defend Christianity "for the obvious reason" -- namely, belief in Jesus Christ.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Regardless of cult practices?
Click to expand...
There was no "regardless" in mind when I affirmed that inclination. If I'm inclined to defend the American political institution of the executive branch of government, it does not follow that I'm committed to defend Watergate.
 
Angel said:
There was no "regardless" in mind when I affirmed that inclination. If I'm inclined to defend the American political institution of the executive branch of government, it does not follow that I'm committed to defend Watergate.
Click to expand...

I think you need to learn some things.

That it's the purpose of Remini's actions.
 
CLAX1911 said:
what do you know about Jehovah's witnesses?
Click to expand...
What I've already told you, plus what I've learned from reading Elvira's posts in this forum, plus what I took away from many conversations with members of JW here in NYC over the years.
 
Angel said:
What I've already told you, plus what I've learned from reading Elvira's posts in this forum, plus what I took away from many conversations with members of JW here in NYC over the years.
Click to expand...

Okay, they teach their people not to interact with authorities outside of the church. So for sexual abuse of children to be taken seriously there have to be two witnesses to it.

They practice shunning. If your son daughter or spouse does something that merits shunning you must shun them or you will be shunned.

They don't believe Christ is God.

If your child needs a blood transfusion to live they expect you to let them die. If you don't you will be disfellowshipped and shunned.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Okay, they teach their people not to interact with authorities outside of the church. So for sexual abuse of children to be taken seriously there have to be two witnesses to it.

They practice shunning. If your son daughter or spouse does something that merits shunning you must shun them or you will be shunned.

They don't believe Christ is God.

If your child needs a blood transfusion to live they expect you to let them die. If you don't you will be disfellowshipped and shunned.
Click to expand...

These are some of their doctrines. I get it. I don't get what business it is of this Roman Catholic what the doctrines may be of any other Christian denomination.
 
Angel said:
These are some of their doctrines. I get it. I don't get what business it is of this Roman Catholic what the doctrines may be of any other Christian denomination.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about doctrines I'm talking about practices. Practices that cause in cover-up the victimization of children. You can't point that out and say it's bad too because you're Catholic? Why I was Catholic four years I never remember hearing that.

Do you I think it's your business that people choose to put their children through sex change therapy if so what business do you have doing that?
 
Angel said:
I don't think I said that. I said I'm "inclined" to defend Christianity "for the obvious reason" -- namely, belief in Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

Maybe that needs further definition.

I have heard evangelicals state that Catholics are bound for hell because they put Mary on too much of a pedestal. The same people say that JW's aren't Christians because they don't believe Christ = God.

In my very amateur reading of the Bible, the non-trinitarian version of the JW's makes more sense than the trinitarian interpretation simply because there doesn't seem to be any support for a 3 part God Being in the OT. JMHO...
 
OscarLevant said:
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
Click to expand...

You cannot go backwards infinitely. At some point you have to reach either nothingness or a primal cause for creation. If it is nothingness than no creation could have happened. Nothing would always be nothing no matter what. That leaves a primal cause of creation. So, what could cause nothing to become the universe we know unless this cause, as it were, existed outside the veil of nothingness? Can matter and energy exist as part of nothing by definition? You are either left with no explanation or with an intelligence that transcends the known boundaries of time and space. (ie.God). In the absence of any other convincing explanation, God ends up making the most sense.
 
veritas1 said:
You cannot go backwards infinitely. At some point you have to reach either nothingness or a primal cause for creation. If it is nothingness than no creation could have happened. Nothing would always be nothing no matter what. That leaves a primal cause of creation. So, what could cause nothing to become the universe we know unless this cause, as it were, existed outside the veil of nothingness? Can matter and energy exist as part of nothing by definition? You are either left with no explanation or with an intelligence that transcends the known boundaries of time and space. (ie.God). In the absence of any other convincing explanation, God ends up making the most sense.
Click to expand...

A celestial being of unknown power and origins... Perhaps, maybe.

But the god of the bible, not a chance, a fictional creation of human imagination.

Any being capable of creating the universe itself does not have an opinion about two blokes having sex with eachother... As an example of the folly of believing in a biblical god.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Maybe that needs further definition.

I have heard evangelicals state that Catholics are bound for hell because they put Mary on too much of a pedestal. The same people say that JW's aren't Christians because they don't believe Christ = God.

In my very amateur reading of the Bible, the non-trinitarian version of the JW's makes more sense than the trinitarian interpretation simply because there doesn't seem to be any support for a 3 part God Being in the OT. JMHO...
Click to expand...

I disagree. Right in Genesis it says Let "us" create man in "our" image. Why use that phrase if God is one entity? Similarly, Isaiah 9:6 calls the messiah Mighty God and Eternal Father. How can that be? The trinity can be shown in both the OT and, certainly, the NT.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
A celestial being of unknown power and origins... Perhaps, maybe.

But the god of the bible, not a chance, a fictional creation of human imagination.

Any being capable of creating the universe itself does not have an opinion about two blokes having sex with eachother... As an example of the folly of believing in a biblical god.
Click to expand...

God can make whatever rules He wants without regard to whether His creation approves. That's why he's God.
 
Angel said:
What I've already told you, plus what I've learned from reading Elvira's posts in this forum, plus what I took away from many conversations with members of JW here in NYC over the years.
Click to expand...

Clax has a skewed opinion of JW's, to say the least, so don't believe everything he says..by his own admittance, he never was one so he knows very little about us, only what he has heard 2nd, 3rd, or 4th hand...
 
CLAX1911 said:
I'm not talking about doctrines I'm talking about practices. Practices that cause in cover-up the victimization of children. You can't point that out and say it's bad too because you're Catholic? Why I was Catholic four years I never remember hearing that.

Do you I think it's your business that people choose to put their children through sex change therapy if so what business do you have doing that?
Click to expand...
Doctrines, practices. There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity in the world. If any one of the 30,000+ engages in practices that contravene existing criminal law in its location, this is a matter for the local authorities in response to the complaint of victims. It is not a matter of trial by the media in the court of public opinion. In the case of Roman Catholicism, for example, there has been much made of alleged pedophilia among some of its priests. Much also made of cover-ups by the Church. The truth of these allegations is unknown. But even if all the allegations were true, how does this truth -- which would be a truth about individuals both in the perpetration and the cover-up -- how does the truth of the allegations, again assuming them true for argument's sake, discredit the religion or the religious beliefs of its members?

I don't follow your sex therapy illustration. Would you mind clarifying it?
 
Angel said:
These are some of their doctrines. I get it. I don't get what business it is of this Roman Catholic what the doctrines may be of any other Christian denomination.
Click to expand...

And some of those are false or I would not be here talking to you or anyone else now, would I?
 
<alt>doxygen said:
...namely, belief in Jesus Christ....
Click to expand...
Maybe that needs further definition.

I have heard evangelicals state that Catholics are bound for hell because they put Mary on too much of a pedestal. The same people say that JW's aren't Christians because they don't believe Christ = God.

In my very amateur reading of the Bible, the non-trinitarian version of the JW's makes more sense than the trinitarian interpretation simply because there doesn't seem to be any support for a 3 part God Being in the OT. JMHO...
Click to expand...
Doctrinal disagreements between denominations are of no interest to me at all. Indeed, doctrinal disagreements between different religions are of academic interest to me only.
I was raised and educated in a particular religion, and for me personally its doctrine provides the narrative connection to Ultimate Reality, a narrative connection every genuine religion provides for its adherents.
 
veritas1 said:
I disagree. Right in Genesis it says Let "us" create man in "our" image. Why use that phrase if God is one entity? Similarly, Isaiah 9:6 calls the messiah Mighty God and Eternal Father. How can that be? The trinity can be shown in both the OT and, certainly, the NT.
Click to expand...

"Us" and "we" as used in the OT could refer to a host of angels or an entire alien race. What I'm looking for is support for the idea of an entity (God) made up of 3 distinct beings - 1) Christ, 2) the father, and 3) the spirit.

Can you tell me where to find that in the OT?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom