Jump to content
The World News Media

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses “Too Dogmatic”?


Anna

Recommended Posts

  • Member
On 12/1/2019 at 6:08 AM, Anna said:

They tried hard not to be dogmatic,

:))))

11 hours ago, Anna said:

Dogmatism: "the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others".

I like this description. Can we make agreement how Truth is not Dogmatic. Because Dogmatism of any sort has no chance to be Truthful at all. 

If we have religious men (GB in this conversation) who giving direction to members we learned this from them: 

They decide to say how they are not inspired. They explained how because that particular reason (not been inspired) they err in doctrines and teachings and instructions. 

How sounds this to you? It sounds very nice. These are definitions that no one would named as Dogmatic. You agree? I also agree. But what is reality? GB have mechanisms to implement all uninspired, err and wrong doctrines, teachings and instructions in life of congregants and to successfully hold them (members) in obedience, not to Truth, but to Dogma. Because many GB doctrines, teachings and instructions based on False Ideas are Dogmas not Truth. That means how Dogmas in form of Religious beliefs are dogmatic itself (Dogmas are not Doctrines or Teachings, because we aspect this last two to be truth), and people who pushing Dogmas on other are Dogmatists. 

As we see, when GB talking about self as people who can err, sounds as very reasonable people. But still, despite that, they want you to obey their dogmatic ideas.

11 hours ago, Anna said:

So I think Jesus had the right to be dogmatic because he had authority from God to lay down principles, and he didn't need to consider evidence or opinions of others for the same reason.

No, i would not go to such level of comparison. Many of us here agreed with statement how Jesus taught Truth only. Because of that he didn't need to be dogmatic. He left to people choice to choose will they accept or reject his teachings. Authority from God, you mentioned, not give him right nor he want to used such authority to demand from people, not even from those who followed him, to blindly follow and obey him. And because of this reason we don't consider him to be dogmatic. He didn't spread dogmas. But his followers did and doing that today.

11 hours ago, Anna said:

However, in areas that didn't demand it, he did consider others, and at no time was he arrogant and haughty. Arrogance and haughtiness are negative synonyms of being dogmatic. Same goes for the apostles, but of course since they were imperfect, they didn't succeed as Jesus did. 

All areas in Jesus' teachings i don't put on two or more levels. As we would need to see some of teachings to be more and other as less important. Do we have some examples from which we can conclude how he considered meetings as more important than preaching or vice versa? Or, to give money in temple box to be more important than helping needing one (brother or not brother) with that same money? If you know Bible text who give more light on this it will be good to read. 

What is more important for Christian to do today? Going to Betel service or to preach? If preaching Kingdom is of ultimate importance for JW members you don't need Betel buildings. So redirect all money to preaching and if you need building for some reasons, make it smaller and less expensive and employ 10 people not 400. Just illustration. :)))  

In what areas Jesus give you freedom and in what he is demanding?

In what areas GB give you freedom and in what they are demanding? 

Try to make comparative list! :))  

I am interested to see result you or any other will have.

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

Obviously Holy spirit was unable to influence that.

I guess how this is not sin against HS, but just opinion ..... about fact how people's spirit are stronger ... sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 638
  • Replies 13
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What is the difference between being dogmatic and critical argument? Is it philosophy or belief in polarization? Do I believe witnesses are dogmatic? Compared to, which religious organization. Ca

It might sound mealy mouthed, but it's hardly deception. They tried hard not to be dogmatic, but they didn’t always succeed. Sometimes they did well and were not dogmatic, and sometimes they didn

Posted Images

  • Member
4 hours ago, Anna said:

This did not mean re- inventing scripture or experimenting and then being dogmatic about the interpretation unless its proved crystal clear.

It is true that no one has the right to reinvent scripture or interpret scripture to cause others to follow them 1Timothy 4:1 instead of the word of God, but I can see where we have the power as Christians by the authority of Christ who sent us to continue his work. Romans 10:13-15

I don’t see where a Christian can go wrong when they follow the word of God Psalm 18:30 and apply that word of God with the same strength Jesus applied it. Matthew 5:48

Can you provide how someone has proven the ancient scrolls with a crystal clear interpretation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.