Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive1

Cult
they keep getting called a cult, but I'm not sure how accurate this is, or whether it's just a snarl word. Totnesmartin 08:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The wider usage of "cult" (ie religion) is perfectly appropriate. The contemporary usage (a religion which takes advantage of its followers and ruins their lives etc) also generally matches, though the close technical usage (Jim Jones or Heaven's Gate) isn't quite there yet, though only because they figure God doesn't need the help. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 09:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A cult is not, strictly, a religion, but the body of practices associated with worship, usually of a particular God. Compare: Sun cult, Moon cult, and cult of saints. 17:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually got some close relatives who converted into JWs. Granted, I still disagree with their practices. It is because of them we could not sing Oh Canada in the morning when I was at high school. Infringing on their religion. Bunch of BS.--Nate River (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I see this is from 2009, this could be of some relevance http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-a-cult/ Thoughts? RoryWatt (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Invite them for coffee
I usually invite them for coffee and try to convert them into whatever I feel like at the moment, be it the fallibility of the bible, myself as a good being despite being a dirty atheist or Thor (the god, not the marvel hero). By doing that I achieve two things. First, I abide to the golden rule and treat these JW's as they'd like to treat others (converting), and by wasting as much time as possible, they are not able to waste time on others in the progress. Keep a few shreds of evil bible quotes handy, rape always works, and don't allow them to use the Bible in their logic. Don't leave condoms in visible places, that's just rude.62.159.14.62 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Heaven
I'm not sure what would be an appropriate fix for this, but the reference to the 144,000 places in heaven is an incorrect reflection of Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs -- they don't believe in heaven.
 * Hi, according to (someone on) the official website, 144,000 special people get to go to heaven. The rest of those saved in the eyes of Jehovah spend a blissful eternity on earth. So, yes, Jehovah's witnesses do believe in heaven, they just believe you are not special enough to be a part of it. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of being a doorbell-botherer if you can't go to heaven for doing it? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.67 / talk / contribs 14:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Website
Why is it that the actual JW websites are not listed in the external links?

watchtower.org jw.org

the sites that are listed seem a bit biased against them&mdash; Unsigned, by: 68.217.210.187 / talk / contribs
 * We can list their sites too. -  π    00:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

they wear snappy white shirts and ties (with the now common sports backpack ruining up the smarts)
...to me, that's the Mormon look (...just add a nameplate that tells me this 19-year-old, pimple-faced pair of totally colseted geeks are actually named "Elder Smith and "Elder Jones"), not the JW look. Am i mixing up my cults? P-Foster (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Bronze it
And put it on my mantle. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 15:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mormons Vs JWs
Yeah, the white shirts, two males, with bicycles, and often backpacks, are the Mormons. I think they may wear an ID tag of some sort while preaching too.

No alcohol = Mormons.

Lots of other differences but those might be the most commonly confused.141.0.11.100 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions
I'm a former Jehovah's Witness, and I have a few problems with the Questions section. They appear to be based on misunderstanding of their theology:

''Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that EVERYONE is going to be resurrected/saved. Those who reject their message are going to be destroyed at Armageddon. They believe that everyone alive at the time of Armageddon who isn't a part of their organization will perish. The preaching work is done to "save" those people and bring them into the fold before it's too late.''
 * "Why is it necessary to preach if everyone is going to be resurrected anyway?"
 * I'm also a former Witness (I wrote most of this section) and I remember that differently. I guess I need to check this in some source material. Despite being raised in the faith, I never had a precise understanding of this portion of the teachings. Feel free to improve. --Tweenk (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

''The answer to the last question is no. It is repeated often in Watchtower publications that only those involved in their organization will be saved. They do not believe there will be people left alive who haven't had the opportunity before the end comes.''
 * "If only people who consciously rejected your faith will die during Armageddon, why are you guilty of their death if you do not preach? Won't they live through Armageddon if they don't learn about your religion?"
 * See above. --Tweenk (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The explanation I was often given is that the sharp teeth and claws were designed for digging and eating tough roots and plants.
 * "Did God design the claws and teeth of tigers, or did they evolve after the expulsion of humans from the Garden of Eden? If they were designed by God, what were they used for in the Garden of Eden?"
 * The only explanation I could find in the CD version of the JW library which explicitly addressed this question said that the food of carnivorous animals which lived before the fall is unknown, and perhaps it did not fossilize. --Tweenk (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As above, a Jehovah's Witness will say they ate plants, seeds, coconuts, etc.
 * "What did the carnivorous dinosaurs eat?"

JW's believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
 * "Why did God create dinosaurs only to kill them long before he created humans?"
 * I heard the opposite. I'm sure there were no drawings of dinosaurs in any of the JW publications. I don't remember the matter being explicitly discussed anywhere. Perhaps this belief has some regional variation. --Tweenk (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always thought that a popular belief was that the dinosaurs died as a result of the flood, as they could not fit in the ark. Though it's not really relevant to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. RoryWatt (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The JW answer is that the law was always known, just not formally written down until Moses came along.
 * "How could Noah have known which animals are clean and which are unclean hundreds of years before the Mosaic law was revealed?"
 * I asked an elder about this and his reply was something along the lines of "Bible is not a textbook, so it doesn't say everything in detail". If the law was known before, what was the point of revealing it to Moses? --Tweenk (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

''The JW's believe he is. You have the choice to join them or not.''
 * "Why God won't offer me the same choice as was offered to Adam and Eve?"
 * This is not the same choice. Adam and Eve had a choice between obeying God and avoiding any suffering, or disobeying him and experiencing suffering. You have a choice between joining JWs or not, but you will experience suffering regardless. --Tweenk (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Link to use?
Putting it here: The Jehovah's Witnesses, by former ones. Rursus (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

More on Blood Tranfusions
While adults die because of their belief about blood transfusions children aren't immune to this. Back in 2007 the first set of sextuplets in Canada were born. Two of the children died in the first two weeks the other children were in the NICU. Doctors said that three of the four remaining children would require blood transfusions (common is pre-mature infants) the parents said no. Doctors tried to stimulate natural hemoglobin production and did as little blood sampling as possible however the children still needed blood transfusions. Thankfully this is where the government stepped in Children's services took custody of the kids so that the transfusions could be performed (a score for rationality imo). I'm curious how these children will be treated growing up in the faith now that they have been "tainted".--Sammygirl (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * AFAIK the children wouldn't be considered 'tainted'. The blood transfusion ban is not about purity or ritual cleanliness. You don't become 'tainted' with foreign blood, you are breaking a commandment from God. That's why whether you accept self-transfusions or blood-derived drugs is left up to your own conscience. If you or your child received a transfusion despite your earnest efforts to refuse, it's not your fault, so you'd be forgiven. --Tweenk (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions to questions
There were a few additions recently to "questions to ask Jehovah's Witnesses". Several of them deal with inconsistencies in the original teachings of Charles Taze Russell. I think these kinds of questions would be considered nitpicking and beside the point. Modern Jehovah's Witnesses certainly have respect for Charles Taze Russell, but he is not revered as a founding father or a prophet of God in a manner similar to how Mormons revere Joseph Smith. They think of him as simply the first man that found the "truth" that was there in the Bible all the time.

Doctrinal changes are also not a big problem in themselves for JWs, because there's a doctrine based on Proverbs 4:18 about "the light getting brighter", e.g. the doctrine being ever closer to perfection through better understanding of the Bible. This is only a problem for changes which are later reverted, so the organ transplant ban is a good question. --Tweenk (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)