The Central Problem with Christianity

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Scholar
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: USA
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 270 times

The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

Jesus (and Paul) thought the world was going to end soon. This is why Jesus told people to give away their possessions, and Paul taught people should not marry. Jesus spoke very specifically about the world ending in the lifetime of those he preached to. [I won't go into the verses, because it will spawn the usual verbal gymnastics about how he did not mean what he said]

Christians, for the most part, ignore the idea of not attaining wealth. They also ignore the admonition not to marry. They ignore these basic Christian teachings because they don't like them. Instead, they claim Jesus didn't really mean what he said about the end coming soon. This provides cover for getting married and accumulating wealth.

The question for debate is, "Why do most Christians marry and try to accumulate wealth despite the very clear New Testament admonitions to do the opposite?
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.
__ Matthew 6:19-20
________________~_________________

"The things that you're li'ble
To read in the Bible
Ain't necessarily so"

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18140
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 437 times
Been thanked: 672 times
Contact:

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #161

Post by JehovahsWitness »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:44 am ... the accusation is that it gets covered up which would be why no study has shown that the accusations are true.
What kind of backwards anti-fact reasoning is that ? studies and investigations are for uncovering cover-up! If the Jehovah's Witnesses have a history of systematic cover up, then this would have come to light as our organisation comes before committee like the Australian commission. One does not usually operate under the premise "Guilty until proven innocent" if justice is the goal.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES are the first to admit we are not perfect and that changes have had to be made. I see no reason to disbelieve victims that claim individual elders did not perhaps handle matters as they should have , especially back in the 80's and early 90s. But from their to suggest indemic corruption, requires more than individual testimony, it requires documented evidence followinb an unbias a peer reviewed authoratitative investigation. No such conclusions have ever been put forward. Room for improvement, yes. A corrupt system of cover-up and refusal to cooperate with investigations, absolutely not!
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sat May 14, 2022 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18140
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 437 times
Been thanked: 672 times
Contact:

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #162

Post by JehovahsWitness »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:44 am ... Also I have heard the 'policy' that two witnesses are needed before an allegation is taken seriously. You deny that or at least challenge us to prove it.

That depends on what one means by "taken seriously" (and again I am going to ask some questions which neither you, nor anyone else in this thraed will anwser but I'll ask anyway
By "taken seriously" do you mean you believe that the Jehovahs Witnesses ...

(a) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they report an accusation to the police?

(b) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they inform the innocent parents?

(c) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they take protective measures, notably of informing parents in the congregation of a potentential danger?

(d) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they explain that the victims or his parents have every right to go to the police immediately if that is their desire ?


If none of the above, what do you mean by "taken seriously"?

Answers would be appreciated but not expected.



JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
oldbadger
Sage
Posts: 731
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #163

Post by oldbadger »

Eloi wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:03 pm
The facts, that only we can know, show that the largest percentage of people who stop being Witnesses is because they have committed sexual acts disapproved from God's point of view and want to continue living under their own rules.
Are you claiming that the majority of folks who leave the Jehovah's Witnesses do so because they are sexual offenders?
What a spin.......! :shock:

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18140
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 437 times
Been thanked: 672 times
Contact:

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #164

Post by JehovahsWitness »

oldbadger wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 1:57 am
Eloi wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:03 pm
The facts, that only we can know, show that the largest percentage of people who stop being Witnesses is because they have committed sexual acts disapproved from God's point of view and want to continue living under their own rules.
Are you claiming that the majority of folks who leave the Jehovah's Witnesses do so because they are sexual offenders? ...

That would depend on WHO is being offended. Not all sexual acts are criminal offenses. Biblically a case can be made that any sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is a {to quote eloi} " sexual [act] disapproved from God's point of view ".

Jehovah's Witnesses do not tolerate sexual immorality whether the acts are considered criminal offenses or not.




JW



To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SEX, SIN and ...SEXUAL IMMORALITY
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 2101
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 286 times
Been thanked: 1010 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #165

Post by TRANSPONDER »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:59 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:44 am ... the accusation is that it gets covered up which would be why no study has shown that the accusations are true.
What kind of backwards anti-fact reasoning is that ? studies and investigations are for uncovering cover-up! If the Jehovah's Witnesses have a history of systematic cover up, then this would have come to light as our organisation comes before committee like the Australian commission. One does not usually operate under the premise "Guilty until proven innocent" if justice is the goal.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES are the first to admit we are not perfect and that changes have had to be made. I see no reason to disbelieve victims that claim individual elders did not perhaps handle matters as they should have , especially back in the 80's and early 90s. But from their to suggest indemic corruption, requires more than individual testimony, it requires documented evidence followinb an unbias a peer reviewed authoratitative investigation. No such conclusions have ever been put forward. Room for improvement, yes. A corrupt system of cover-up and refusal to cooperate with investigations, absolutely not!
This is the question isn't it? That the accusations are being made implies that no real investigation was made. Thus the claims that it was all investigated sounds as dodgy as the Strobel claim that all avenues of evidence was followed - but there is no evidence looked at. I have a seen a court case of JW abuse. Don't know how it turned out. But I have seen many claims of abuse - but no court cases. Is it because nothing was found or nothing was followed up? I'm not saying, but asking. It is rather your claim or suggestion that nothing being investigated proves no cover up that may be back to front.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 8:08 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:44 am ... Also I have heard the 'policy' that two witnesses are needed before an allegation is taken seriously. You deny that or at least challenge us to prove it.

That depends on what one means by "taken seriously" (and again I am going to ask some questions which neither you, nor anyone else in this thraed will anwser but I'll ask anyway
By "taken seriously" do you mean you believe that the Jehovahs Witnesses ...

(a) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they report an accusation to the police?

(b) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they inform the innocent parents?

(c) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they take protective measures, notably of informing parents in the congregation of a potentential danger?

(d) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they explain that the victims or his parents have every right to go to the police immediately if that is their desire ?


If none of the above, what do you mean by "taken seriously"?

Answers would be appreciated but not expected.



JW
Well you tell us, since presumably you know what JW policy is on this rather than outsiders. Look, by making a flurry over this, we are probably going to end up posting a few videos of abuse -allegations and stories of cover ups. Are you ready for that? You will probably see how impressed we browsers are by flat denial of everything. We are also, incidentally, used to the ploy or gambit of 'Well, you tell us what we mean and then I can say "Wrong...so you must be wrong about everything else". We are used to that one. :)

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 2101
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 286 times
Been thanked: 1010 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #166

Post by TRANSPONDER »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:04 am
oldbadger wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 1:57 am
Eloi wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:03 pm
The facts, that only we can know, show that the largest percentage of people who stop being Witnesses is because they have committed sexual acts disapproved from God's point of view and want to continue living under their own rules.
Are you claiming that the majority of folks who leave the Jehovah's Witnesses do so because they are sexual offenders? ...

That would depend on WHO is being offended. Not all sexual acts are criminal offenses. Biblically a case can be made that any sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is a {to quote eloi} " sexual [act] disapproved from God's point of view ".

Jehovah's Witnesses do not tolerate sexual immorality whether the acts are considered criminal offenses or not.




JW



To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SEX, SIN and ...SEXUAL IMMORALITY
There's the problem right there. There is more that matters than the in house Dogma and rules of what is sin and what is not. There are secular Laws and they apply to religious groups...or should. If they are being excluded because it is up to the cu....community to decide whether there had been an offense or not, that flags up the whole point, problem and argument, and the self -serving cover -up of abuse that (whether true or not) appears to be implied as JW policy by your postings.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18140
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 437 times
Been thanked: 672 times
Contact:

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #167

Post by JehovahsWitness »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 9:54 am ... It is rather your claim or suggestion that nothing being investigated proves no cover up ...
I have made no such claim; my point is in the absence of unbias investigation a presumption of guilt should not be inferred.

You are wrong to say no cases against Jehovahs Witnesses have gone to court, there have been a number. Mostly for obvious reasons, against individuals and until recently none successful against the Watchtower corporation itself. The rare cases when the Watchtower society has been found at fault, none have established systematic corruption or attempts to pervert the course of justice (cover-up).

Granted it is not the courts place to interpret trends but to establish if a law has been broken, which is why I referenced commissions (such as the Australian Commission) which are not judiciary procedures but exist to examine where improvement might be made within the limits of the law. I have read the conclusions of the Australian Commission and the Watchtower society's response so I feel confident to speak about the what has and has not been established in this regard.
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sun May 15, 2022 5:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18140
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 437 times
Been thanked: 672 times
Contact:

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #168

Post by JehovahsWitness »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 9:54 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:59 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 9:44 am ... Also I have heard the 'policy' that two witnesses are needed before an allegation is taken seriously. You deny that or at least challenge us to prove it.

That depends on what one means by "taken seriously" (and again I am going to ask some questions which neither you, nor anyone else in this thread will anwser but I'll ask anyway
By "taken seriously" do you mean you believe that the Jehovahs Witnesses ...

(a) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they report an accusation to the police?

(b) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they inform the innocent parents?

(c) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they take protective measures, notably of informing parents in the congregation of a potentential danger?

(d) require two witnesses of the sexual abuse before they explain that the victims or his parents have every right to go to the police immediately if that is their desire ?


If none of the above, what do >>you<<< mean by "taken seriously"?

Answers would be appreciated but not expected.



JW
Well you tell us, since presumably you know what JW policy is on this rather than outsiders. ...
I cannot tell you what YOU mean when you use the expression "taken seriously". This is because I am not a mind reader.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
oldbadger
Sage
Posts: 731
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #169

Post by oldbadger »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:04 am
That would depend on WHO is being offended. Not all sexual acts are criminal offenses. Biblically a case can be made that any sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is a {to quote eloi} " sexual [act] disapproved from God's point of view ".

Jehovah's Witnesses do not tolerate sexual immorality whether the acts are considered criminal offenses or not.
JW
Ah..... now that's all a bit out of date, you see.
Question:- Do you (and all Jehivah's Witnesses) obey the 613 laws of the Old Testament without question?

If not then I suggest that some further reviewing of the laws in the light of this present world is a really good idea.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18140
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 437 times
Been thanked: 672 times
Contact:

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #170

Post by JehovahsWitness »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:00 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:04 am
oldbadger wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 1:57 am
Eloi wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:03 pm
The facts, that only we can know, show that the largest percentage of people who stop being Witnesses is because they have committed sexual acts disapproved from God's point of view and want to continue living under their own rules.
Are you claiming that the majority of folks who leave the Jehovah's Witnesses do so because they are sexual offenders? ...

That would depend on WHO is being offended. Not all sexual acts are criminal offenses. Biblically a case can be made that any sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is a {to quote eloi} " sexual [act] disapproved from God's point of view ".

Jehovah's Witnesses do not tolerate sexual immorality whether the acts are considered criminal offenses or not.




JW



To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SEX, SIN and ...SEXUAL IMMORALITY
There's the problem right there. There is more that matters than the in house Dogma and rules of what is sin and what is not. There are secular Laws and they apply to religious groups...or should. If they are being excluded because it is up to the cu....community to decide whether there had been an offense or not, that flags up the whole point, problem and argument, and the self -serving cover -up of abuse that (whether true or not) appears to be implied as JW policy by your postings.

I cannot respond to this point as I do not understand what the point is. You seem to be implying that there is something problematic in not seeing all sexual immorality as criminal. But perhaps I misunderstand.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES do not control the legal system; if a State wants to render sex before marriage for example as illegal that is their decision. We do not decide what is legal or illegal only what behaviours we will or will not tolerate within our communities.
I feel confident you are not suggesting Jehovahs Witnesses see themselves as being above the law.

Unless a State mandates something the bible forbids (or conversely prohibits something God commands) we obey the bible instruction to be obedient to the superior (secular) authorities. In the case of Child Sexual abuse there is no such conflict, since Jehovahs Witnesses view such acts as both morally abhorrent AND justifiably illegal.



JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sun May 15, 2022 8:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Post Reply