I never get any around here, perhaps because my sis-in-law, who lives in the same complex, is a JW and has passed on the word that I am a lost cause.
My late DH once verbally assualted a pair who came knocking one Sunday morning (he was in a foul mood that day) and I was MORTIFIED! Really pissed with him, since my plan was to just be polite and send them on their way.
I’ve actually engaged some in debate before, when I had nothing better to do and felt like a bit of fun (I was raised a Baptist, my mom was a JW for a while and is currently again, so I’m very familiar with their theology, and I know my Bible front to back so I was able to argue point by point and they were scrambling to keep up:p)
And it’s fun to fantasize about saying something like, “Oh, no thanks, I worship Satan” and closing the door, but I lean towards a simple no thanks, we have all the God we need right now.
You have to be FIRM and leave no room for misunderstanding. DO NOT suggest a future visit would be better…just say NO, THANKS! God Bless you, bye. Period.
Be strong.
It’s all about probabilities - until you can disprove solipsism, nothing is certain except for conditional statements.
Nonetheless, if you do not include in your conditional the statement “god is delibertately scamming us with loads upon loads upon loads upon loads of deliberately fabricated artificial evidence that is specifically designed to lead us to believe that certain statements in the bible are not true”, then the probability of your scenario being true is 0%, if it includes the notion that the bible is true.
And obviously none of this applies to people who do not believe in the inerrancy of the statements in question. Of course, there are a wide range of things that, if any of them are believed, then one must also assume a deceiver god - including souls, in my opinion. So while christians vary widely with how much they conflict with observable reality, I think that most of them at least slighty conflict at the edges.
I had an interesting encounter with a couple jehovah witnesses.
I caught them off guard by simple reply.
I already have direct connection.
They sat entranced for quite a while as I answered questions and quotes.
Then suddenly they both hurriedly departed.
It was not my faith that seemed somewhat shaken.
What difference does it make? This person probably gets a thrill dropping firecrackers in anthills, or drowning kittens, or doing other unsettling things for his/her own enjoyment.
I’m surprised the Witness couple even bothered to visit jefferson’s large wet rock!
They may not have bothered. rwjefferson would not be the first to tell of his biblical prowess, in which he and others leave JWs shell shocked, bewildered and faith shaken.(although “entranced” is a new one…:dubious:)
Of course, when pressed for a reenactment for a crowd not as easily entranced as those poor JWs, we usually get silence or some variation of “not now.”
It is extremely uncomfortable because it is so outrageously formal. Italian provincial chairs (which almost force good posture), a tea table with antique tea set and hurricane lamp with lead crystal tear drops. A lead crystal chandalier. A real Persian rug, thick with a deep red center that nobody wants to step on for fear of leaving a footprint. Bridal portraits with gold-leaf frames. An original Steuben that had belonged to a famous NASCAR driver. A gold and porcelain French-type phone. An antique music with gold-plated bells. A piano. Hand-made linen lace draperies that casdade in folds. All that sort of thing. Very stiff and uppity.
And it’s all right next door to our ultra-comfortable great room, with its plush leather sofas and giant TV and huge stone fire place and thick carpet, the kind you love to squish your toes in. A rack of TV trays. Tables you can actually set shit on. Stuff like that. And you can see it from the parlor through a very wide door.
It subtly conveys the feeling of unwelcomness. But it does it Southern style. You know, kinda like “But honey, it looks so good on you!” when somebody complains that they’ve gained weight.
I told them that I could read and understand what was written in the heavens and earth and flesh. I told them that I did not need Holy Word or Book or Flesh or other graven image; especially one that contradicts god’s own hand.
Thanks for responding and thanks for the good advice. I will strive to better see now, and ever more clearly. You might consider the same.
I will vouch for the entranced as more kind and polite. Yet at first they were just as disbelieving. I told them I know of arcs of old sea beds flooding high on crests of mountains. (I used different words.) I told them of the power that moves mountains and plate tectonics and evolution. They were at least willing to try better understanding.
Calling one’s most Holy Word and Book and Flesh a graven image might be considered a zinger. In some countries it is considered a capital offense.
“Would you like to learn more about the Holy Word?”
No thanks have a direct connection.
I have no need to worship graven images.
I’m not sure why you get off on this biblical prowess thing but in this case you might acknowledge that you’re completely wrong. rwj didn’t make any claim about biblical knowledge.
I find his response totally appropriate and, ironically, biblically accurate. IMHO it’s more in tune with what Jesus taught than most organized Christian religions.
Specifically
James 1:5 and John 8:32.
I mean really,
“Would you like to learn about God’s word?”
“No thanks, I have a direct connection”
Makes sense to me.
Maybe "Which one of the graven images men refer to as God’s word are you talking about? " would be an appropriate question.
Well, of the few things I “get off” on, biblical prowess wouldn’t be one of them.
But…since you brought it up, I’d simply point out that for every time I wade into a thread and pick a couple gang members off the back of some fresh faced Christian who has opened a witnessing thread, (in this place of all places) theres 50 times that someone has made the claim “You [Christian] are an idiot! I’ve read the bible cover to cover!”, and it goes unchallenged.
It’s rank credentials posturing, plain and simple, and what makes it offensive is that its virtually always from people who have no history of showing they they actually did read the bible.
If you’ve read the bible, great. If you want to whip up on some Christian, I say, “Have at it.” (Because the Christian should be able to “put up” also, right?)
But I didn’t put any words into their keyboards. They claimed to have read the bible “cover to cover.” (and Locrian wins the all time moxie award)
I may be hanging these guys, but they’re supplying the rope.
This again? You know calling people who said they’ve read the Bible from cover to cover liars is frowned upon. Perhaps you could give your criteria for doubting such a claim.
That’s excellent. I’ve often wondered why people who think God created the world would refuse to look at the world, and prefer to look at a less than trustworthy book.
While it’s true that reading the Bible cover to cover isn’t any kind of sign of real knowledge of the Bible it depends on how it’s used. Often those fresh faced Christians who stop by to testify use Biblical quotes and have no more knowledge than those who read the Bible once ten years ago. In those cases a very cursory knowledge is all that’s required to discuss with someone else who also has a very cursory knowledge of the book they claim to value so highly and further claim to be God’s holy words.
I think the point is , “I have read the Bible and remain unconvinced.” I think those who want to witness need to drop the “If you would only read God’s word you’d understand” shtick. Lot’s of folks have and remain unconvinced or even more convinced of the folly of aggrandizing any book.
Let’s be accurate. Claiming to have read the Bible cover to cover isn’t automatically a claim of great Biblical knowledge. It depends on the nature and purpose of the discussion. I would say those that testify using biblical quotes should be expected to have a bit more knowledge about the book they are quoting. When it becomes apparent that they don’t someone who has simply read the Bible is only showing an equal cursory knowledge and demonstrating that their interpretation and/or opinion is just as valid.
I think the question is whether your challenge of their knowledge is appropriate to the conversation underway. Your rush to criticize rwj is a good example. There are a lot of levels of Biblical knowledge among believers and non believers alike. There’s no reason to assume a factual statement of “I read the Bible cover to cover” is a claim of great biblical knowledge. Anyone , including Christians can cherry pick a few verses and make some claim about interpretation.
I’ve spent a lot of time in the NT but it only took a reading of Leviticus to confirm my suspicions that the OT didn’t hold much interest for me. I don’t think that prohibits me from challenging any Christian on beliefs and doctrine.
