Jehovah's Witnesses believe there will be a ban on religion

[JehovahsWitness]

Jehovah's Witnesses have long pointed to what they believe is bible prophecy that there will eventually be political measures to restrict all outward manifestations of religious activity.

My question is:

- Do you believe the world will be a safer place if what they believe came true, ie an end to religioun (leaving personal belief a private matter)?

[rikuoamero]

It is not possible to ban a person's thoughts, and attempting to do so is a useless, self defeating and repugnant notion.

I agree, thoughts cannot be legislated. That much is true.

I absolutely think the world would be a safer place if all religious beliefs faded and disappeared.

Maybe the day will come when some who hold this worldview will feel the need to "hurry things along"... in any case the Jehovah's Witnesse belief is that there will indeed be a State run assault (not on religious thought or belief) but on religious organizations and institutions.

We refer to this biblically as "the destruction of Babylon the Great".


JW

JW

In case you failed to notice, Babylon was destroyed centuries ago. It's nothing more than an archaeological excavation now.

We're talking about "Babylon the Great," the world empire of false religion---all of them shaped according to the pagan beliefs set in stone by the original Babylon.....such as the trinities of gods, immortality of the soul, literal hell-fire.

I wonder...is it allowed to ask for evidence for this even here in this subforum? This subforum regards the bible as authoritative and those things you mention at the end that are 'false' can be found in the bible. There are Christians who proclaim them to be true.

[Claire Evans]

Jehovah's Witnesses have long pointed to what they believe is bible prophecy that there will eventually be political measures to restrict all outward manifestations of religious activity.

My question is:

- Do you believe the world will be a safer place if what they believe came true, ie an end to religioun (leaving personal belief a private matter)?

The plan is to do away with all religions in favour of Lucifer worship.


No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a LUCIFERIAN Initiation."
- David Spangler
Director of Planetary Initiative
United Nations

That aside, religion has been very useful in controlling mankind. I don't think religion ever was God's place. It was just to have a relationship with Christ. What would the world, hypothetically be like without religion? There would be other ways to make the world a miserable place.

[benchwarmer]

I think there is also a huge difference between asking if the world would be a safer place if religion ended, versus asking if the world would be safer if governments simply tried to force people to end their religious beliefs by making laws against religion.

These are two entirely different thing. Making laws against religion won't necessarily end religion. All it would do is make it an illegal activity that would most likely continue to exist illegally anyway.

I think DI hits the nail on the head here.

In fact, in my opinion, I think the world would be a more dangerous place if governments tried to outlaw religion. Not because I think any particular religion is true, but because when push comes to shove, it's clear from history that some who are completely steeped in their own religions have no compunctions about creating carnage in the service of their god(s). There would likely be multiple religious 'civil wars' as the truly devout fought to keep their religions alive.

The only true 'cure', IMHO, is education. If religions were to die out naturally I certainly think the world would be a safer place. It would be one less 'trigger' for violence at the very least.

[ttruscott]

No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a LUCIFERIAN Initiation."
- David Spangler
Director of Planetary Initiative
United Nations

Listed as a fake citation at http://www.illuminatirex.com/conspiracy-misquotes/:

]“No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation.�

~David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

Faked Citation – David Spangler is a leading figure of the New Age movement. The post of “Director of Planetary Initiative� doesn’t exist at the United Nations.

Spangler was director for Planetary Citizen, of which Planetary Initiative for the World We Choose was an offshoot. Planetary Citizens was funded by the Kettering Foundation, an NGO associated with the UN Department of Public Information.

I’ve labeled this quote as fake because of the implied links to the United Nations and its directorship in order to make the quote appear more consequential.

The significance of this quote is contingent on David Spangler having any importance or influence within the United Nations. He doesn’t. It certainly cannot be used to claim that UN representatives must pledge their souls to Satan!

The quote appears to be a distortion of a passage from his Reflections on the Christ lecture series:

Lucifer comes to give us the final gift of wholeness. If we accept it, then he is free and we are free. That is the Luciferic Initiation. It is one that many people now, and in the days ahead, will be facing, for it is an initiation into the New Age.

[rikuoamero]

No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a LUCIFERIAN Initiation."
- David Spangler
Director of Planetary Initiative
United Nations

Listed as a fake citation at http://www.illuminatirex.com/conspiracy-misquotes/:

]“No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation.�

~David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

Faked Citation – David Spangler is a leading figure of the New Age movement. The post of “Director of Planetary Initiative� doesn’t exist at the United Nations.

Spangler was director for Planetary Citizen, of which Planetary Initiative for the World We Choose was an offshoot. Planetary Citizens was funded by the Kettering Foundation, an NGO associated with the UN Department of Public Information.

I’ve labeled this quote as fake because of the implied links to the United Nations and its directorship in order to make the quote appear more consequential.

The significance of this quote is contingent on David Spangler having any importance or influence within the United Nations. He doesn’t. It certainly cannot be used to claim that UN representatives must pledge their souls to Satan!

The quote appears to be a distortion of a passage from his Reflections on the Christ lecture series:

Lucifer comes to give us the final gift of wholeness. If we accept it, then he is free and we are free. That is the Luciferic Initiation. It is one that many people now, and in the days ahead, will be facing, for it is an initiation into the New Age.

Claire, you've got some 'splaining to do! Unless I have you mixed up with someone else, you've been very vocal in the past about being able to hear Christ, who is Truth (with a capital T). And yet...you posted that comment, that 'quote'? Did Christ tell you to post it? Or was Christ silent on the matter?

[onewithhim]

It is not possible to ban a person's thoughts, and attempting to do so is a useless, self defeating and repugnant notion.

I agree, thoughts cannot be legislated. That much is true.

I absolutely think the world would be a safer place if all religious beliefs faded and disappeared.

Maybe the day will come when some who hold this worldview will feel the need to "hurry things along"... in any case the Jehovah's Witnesse belief is that there will indeed be a State run assault (not on religious thought or belief) but on religious organizations and institutions.

We refer to this biblically as "the destruction of Babylon the Great".


JW

JW

In case you failed to notice, Babylon was destroyed centuries ago. It's nothing more than an archaeological excavation now.

We're talking about "Babylon the Great," the world empire of false religion---all of them shaped according to the pagan beliefs set in stone by the original Babylon.....such as the trinities of gods, immortality of the soul, literal hell-fire.

I wonder...is it allowed to ask for evidence for this even here in this subforum? This subforum regards the bible as authoritative and those things you mention at the end that are 'false' can be found in the bible. There are Christians who proclaim them to be true.

I believe that the Bible is authoritative as well. I firmly believe that the Bible does not teach that God is a trinity of Gods, nor does it teach that the soul is immortal or that hell is a fire-pit where people are roasted. Religious leaders have taught these things to their people to keep them in line and hold on to their power and wealth. Their people stay in line because they say to themselves, "our clergy says they represent God, and they must be right! Who are we to question it?" It is the world's greatest con job.

If a person really digs into the Bible, many startling things are uncovered. The Bible is not wrong---many of the various translations that men have rendered are seriously lacking. Starting esp. with the King James. It has beautiful language, but its translators already believed in the Trinity and thus translated verses accordingly, not according to proper rules and actual meanings of words. Versions of the Bible after that were very much influenced by the KJV translation. If a new translation varies very far from that norm, it is criticized as inaccurate and erroneous, and its translators are suspected of ulterior motives in producing a different translation. You hear it all the time: someone has "changed" the Bible by offering a new translation. The "change" is from the standard of the King James Version, which was, after all presented as the "standard" translation. It is thought that if a translation differs from the "standard," clearly it must be wrong.

Unfortunately, this view of things is based on ignorance of the most basic facts about the Bible. The KJV was not the first Bible (not even the first English Bible); it was itself a translation. It just happened to be a translation that was used by many people for a long time. Age adds a certain sanctity to things, right? It starts to seem that it has always been that way, and any change is a dangerous innovation. But what are we to do? We can only compare a new translation to the old translation, and do not have a valid norm by which to compare translations. But the fact that the general public does not have access to a valid norm does not mean that one does not exist. There IS such a norm that is available to anyone who is willing to take the trouble to learn how to use it: the original Greek New Testament (or the original Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament).

There are Bible versions that have gone back to the original languages and have discerned the true meanings behind many controversial verses and/or words, which the King James committee did not. It relied on the LATIN translation, which was not an original language of the Bible. So there you have the crux of the matter. Though pretty good, the KJV was put together by people who were concerned about commitments to certain "basic" Christian doctrines quite apart from the Bible. We have today, access to a much larger set of manuscripts that are even earlier, and the sheer number available now means more ability to compare and examine. (See Truth in Translation by Jason David BeDuhn, pp.2-10)

Better translation has cleared up the KJV's errors in translating all references to a fiery place or any place a demon might be as "Hell," even though many different Greek words were involved. The KJV renders "Hades" as "Hell"(E.g., Acts 2:31), "Gehenna" as "Hell" (Matt.5:22; 23:15,33) and "Tartarus" as "Hell" (2Peter 2:4). Can we see the incontrovertible confusion this garners? (My language gets flowery the more emotional I get. ) ALL of those references say "Hell" in the KJV, but they are not all from the same word or even words that mean the same.

If you want me to explain more, I will be glad to.


.

[onewithhim]

I think there is also a huge difference between asking if the world would be a safer place if religion ended, versus asking if the world would be safer if governments simply tried to force people to end their religious beliefs by making laws against religion.

These are two entirely different thing. Making laws against religion won't necessarily end religion. All it would do is make it an illegal activity that would most likely continue to exist illegally anyway.

I think DI hits the nail on the head here.

In fact, in my opinion, I think the world would be a more dangerous place if governments tried to outlaw religion. Not because I think any particular religion is true, but because when push comes to shove, it's clear from history that some who are completely steeped in their own religions have no compunctions about creating carnage in the service of their god(s). There would likely be multiple religious 'civil wars' as the truly devout fought to keep their religions alive.

The only true 'cure', IMHO, is education. If religions were to die out naturally I certainly think the world would be a safer place. It would be one less 'trigger' for violence at the very least.

Good thoughts. I feel that the only true cure is Jesus coming back. (Isaiah 9:6,7; Daniel 2:44)


.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 26 by onewithhim]

Oh I understand the problem(s) with the KJV, but you seem to miss my point.
The KJV is a version of the Bible. There are adherents to the KJV. Some of those people believe in a literal fire-and-brimstone hell, mainly because of the description they find in their Bible.
If one is going to discuss the Bible here in this sub-forum, and we're being told there's this rule that the Bible is to be considered authoritative, then why should people accept your beliefs about what the Bible 'really' says, versus the KJV? A person who holds to the KJV can say "Here, the Bible talks about the Holy Spirit" and they would not be incorrect. It would be in their Bible .
At the end of the day, from my perspective, I'm going to see a bunch of people arguing about what exactly the Bible 'really' teaches, 'really' means, and thus, the rule for this sub-forum that the Bible be considered authoritative doesn't really accomplish anything. Indeed, if memory serves me right, one of our resident atheists, Divine Insight, is able to quote the New Testament and say that one doesn't even need to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be 'saved'.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 28 by rikuoamero]

Nobody is saying (at least I don't think anyone is) that any is translation bound. In any case Jehovah's Witnesses are not translation bound, in fact we printed the KJV on our own presses for many years. The NWT has only existed since the 1950s and prior to that we used many different translations including the KJV.

In any case, while we don't believe all translations are equal, any bible can be used to learn the truth about God.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 26 by onewithhim]

Oh I understand the problem(s) with the KJV, but you seem to miss my point.
The KJV is a version of the Bible. There are adherents to the KJV. Some of those people believe in a literal fire-and-brimstone hell, mainly because of the description they find in their Bible.
If one is going to discuss the Bible here in this sub-forum, and we're being told there's this rule that the Bible is to be considered authoritative, then why should people accept your beliefs about what the Bible 'really' says, versus the KJV? A person who holds to the KJV can say "Here, the Bible talks about the Holy Spirit" and they would not be incorrect. It would be in their Bible .
At the end of the day, from my perspective, I'm going to see a bunch of people arguing about what exactly the Bible 'really' teaches, 'really' means, and thus, the rule for this sub-forum that the Bible be considered authoritative doesn't really accomplish anything. Indeed, if memory serves me right, one of our resident atheists, Divine Insight, is able to quote the New Testament and say that one doesn't even need to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be 'saved'.

I hear you. I have to say that if people really check into the history of the versions and how they were translated, etc., people would soon see that the KJV is lacking in many ways. It was translated from a Latin version because satisfactory Greek mss. were not available in any great quanitity (as we have discovered such in more recent years).

Be that as it may, when I first encountered JWs, I used only the King James. I was dead set on proving JWs wrong. I was very religious and thought I knew the Bible. Well, here I am, 45 years later, and I obviously got convinced that the KJV needed help. Anyway, I will still use the KJV to show the truth. It contradicts itself as far as the Trinity, Hell-fire, and such, but you can reason with a person that it must be a bad translation to be so contradictory! Why say, "the Word was God" in one place, and then "Jesus said to the Father, 'You are the only true God'" in another? It seems to me that a person who is looking for the truth would think about these things.

Divine Insight couldn't be serious if he says that the Bible says that one doesn't have to believe in Jesus to be saved. Show me that one, D.I.

A person can go back to what the Bible really says if he/she takes the time to look at the New Tetstament in the original Greek language, for example. There one sees every Greek term that is used, and not just "hell" 16 times.


.