JW looking clarity followup

[robvalue]

"Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."

[KevinM1]

No, its actually not trespassing unless you put a sign up.

Don't know where you live, but everywhere I've lived, private property is just that, private. If you step onto private property without the owner's permission, you are trespassing. No signs required.

Trespassing, in NH, anyway, is entering private property without the authority or permission to do so.  No sign required.

---

"Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."

They'll be shot a 3rd time if they somehow resurrect themselves a few days later.

[Ravenshire]

Hahahahaha!

Nope.  It's a Bic

Well, at least now I know who stole my cigarette lighter.

[rexbeccarox]

It wasn't me!

... and what are you doing with a cigarette lighter, anyway?

[Won2blv]

I do find it interesting that most people here say they would not serve god of the bible even if he proved his existence.

As I pointed out in my reply, there is precedent for it.  The Bible speaks of many people that rejected god even though they believed that he existed.  Satan.  Adam and Eve.  A great number of the Israelites.  Many of the people of Jesus' time, including the priests and one of his own disciples.  They all found god sufficiently underwhelming that they were able to make the decision to turn from him, even knowing that the stakes were very dire.

Doesn't that make you think?  How unimpressive must god have seemed to them, that they preferred death or eternal torment versus living forever on earth or in heaven?

---

You are aware of the policy of the Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to 'allowing people to have beliefs that they don't agree with'?  Does the name Raymond Franz ring a bell?  Just visiting a forum such as this one could lead to your being disfellowshipped and shunned by the membership, up to and including your immediate family depending on the circumstances.  Think about how you are taught to react when, during one of your door-to-door visits, the person begins to discuss his or her own beliefs or challenges yours.

To your first point, my reasoning is that even if god did prove his existence it would not make a difference to those that believe he is immoral or sadistic. And so that is another debate as to whether or not he is, but its faulty reasoning against his existence, or non existence.

And as far as your second point, Raymond Franz had all the right in the world to believe in and preach what he wanted. We believe that every human does have that right. But simply, no, you can't be one of Jehovah's Witnesses if you don't believe in what they do. Would Starbucks keep you on as a employee if you didn't follow their guidelines constantly. Maybe you even spoke out against Starbucks to customers? Or what if you were a board member of Starbucks and you insisted that the focus be shifted from coffee to milkshakes. You're not going to be allowed to have sway or even a position in that company. Raymond Franz preached something that didn't jive with what Jehovah's Witnesses believed. Perhaps he was right, but its foolish to assume that he could have a lasting position in an organization that he didn't support

---

No, its actually not trespassing unless you put a sign up.

That is patently untrue. Seriously, you might want to look into the law yourself rather than listen to your church elders on that one.

And there are zero implications with a visit.

The implication is that someone I don't know has the gall to step on my property and proselytize in the hopes I join their religion. Homey don't play dat.

You can even ask to be put on a "do not call" list.

I shouldn't have to request to not be solicited.

Witnesses are not members of a cult.

All religions are cults. If you believe in some imaginary friend who's kind unless you don't do something he likes, where he then threatens you with eternal torture, and he has weird rules about things that may have made sense to ancient Middle Eastern peasants but really have no place in the 21st century, you're a cultist.

They are normal human beings.

The same could be said for all cult members.

If you think that it makes you superior because you feel you know something they don't and it makes you more free as a result, thats just great. But all they're trying to do is share something that could be encouraging.

The Christian god is anything but encouraging, signed, a former Catholic. Also, with the surgeries I had, the no blood transfusions thing really wouldn't fly.

And if you don't care, you can remember that they are humans. And in my opinion, ALL humans deserve to be treated with dignity.

Treating someone with dignity != letting them waltz on my property to preach to me. It means I politely ask them to leave. Or simply have my dog bark at them from inside my house until they do. If they don't, there's hell to pay.

But clearly your beliefs (or non beliefs) are important to you. Or I doubt you'd be on forums commenting on them

You'll note that I'm on an online forum devoted to atheism rather than attempting to spread the good news of non-belief to theists as though it's my mission. Maybe that's because I'm not so arrogant to think that my world view is so important that I need to go into other people's homes - virtual or not - to share it.

It'll be hard convincing you that you don't know everything but... the Supreme court in the United States has routinely ruled in Witnesses favor that we have the right to do what we do. At least that is just in America. There are certain barriers that we will not cross like no trespassing signs and fences but knocking on peoples doors is not trespassing and would not warrant the right to shoot. Do your own research though because I know that my word is null 

---

1. Why would this almighty god be subjected to what a human demands as proof?

You're making the mistake of thinking this is about god: it isn't. It's about what it's reasonable for humans to believe based on the available evidence. God might not be under any obligation to provide evidence, but if he doesn't then it's certainly not rational to believe in him. This sort of petulant "why should god do what you say?" argumentation doesn't help anyone.

2. Does gods creation not make him apparent?

How did you determine it was a creation, especially if your god is too proud to give any evidence at all that he exists?

3. If god popped up one day to make himself readily known as existing, would all people serve him any way?

I wouldn't, but I'd at least acknowledge that he exists.

4. If gods purpose as I have been taught, is that one day the earth will be a paradise like state with no evil. Back to its original Eden conditions. Proving that Satan, Adam, and Eve were wrong to reject gods sovereignty and humans are not capable of ruling themselves... how would it serve his purpose if people worshipped him out of fear of him killing them rather than from their hearts?

I know the last one will get a lot of flack

If god doesn't want people worshiping him out of fear, he made a terrible mistake by instituting the concept of hell, and by historically brutally punishing anyone who disobeys him in any way. You can't be all "oh, god wants us to serve him honestly, not through fear," while describing a god who turned Lot's wife to salt for turning around when he didn't want her to. Those two claims do not gel.

Well again, I have never believed in hell and its pretty well established that the bible never speaks about a literal fiery hell. And for me, I can reason that a god would have certain requirements with consequences. I personally don't think that mortgage companies are evil but I do believe their purpose is to make money. So it doesn't fit their purpose to let people live in houses that do not pay their mortgage. But this does nothing for reasoning whether or not a god exists. At best, its an argument that god is not all good

[LastPoet]

The best way to get rid of JWs is to say that we already know all about their bs, i mean, message and let them go. Fucking weirdos knocking at peoples door to talk about magic.

[Cyberman]

As it happens, I put up a "no cold calls" sign today. I'm sick of being bothered. I don't have the energy for it.

It's a real work of art, it took me 10 seconds with a bit of paper, a biro and some sellotape. How I've grown since I was a useless child!

I use this:

[Tonus]

To your first point, my reasoning is that even if god did prove his existence it would not make a difference to those that believe he is immoral or sadistic. And so that is another debate as to whether or not he is, but its faulty reasoning against his existence, or non existence.

I am not aware of any atheist who uses "I wouldn't serve that god" as a reason for or against the existence of any god.  It is simply a reply to the question you posed, which I think that theists often ask in order to show that the atheist is simply a rebellious believer.  I don't see what difference it makes how I answer that question, since no one has been able to produce a single god.

And as far as your second point, Raymond Franz had all the right in the world to believe in and preach what he wanted. We believe that every human does have that right. But simply, no, you can't be one of Jehovah's Witnesses if you don't believe in what they do.

I think you missed the point: Jehovah's Witnesses do not simply stop identifying such a person as a member.  They demand that the rest of the membership --including family members and close friends-- cease all communication with the person outside of specific family or business dealings, which they encourage be kept to a minimum.  Those who do not follow this command risk being removed as well, and shunned the same way.  It is not an attempt to keep the organization free of troublemakers, as much as it is an attempt to intimidate the membership and keep them in line.

Raymond Franz preached something that didn't jive with what Jehovah's Witnesses believed.

Slight (but important) correction: Franz only differed on a few points of view, and he did not preach these.  He discussed them with one or two fellow JWs, and those were also removed from the organization in spite of their protests that they had not agreed with his views.  The organization made it clear that even the perception of independent thinking was to be dealt with very severely.  Surely you can see how this differs from your Starbucks example?

[Won2blv]

To your first point, my reasoning is that even if god did prove his existence it would not make a difference to those that believe he is immoral or sadistic. And so that is another debate as to whether or not he is, but its faulty reasoning against his existence, or non existence.

I am not aware of any atheist who uses "I wouldn't serve that god" as a reason for or against the existence of any god.  It is simply a reply to the question you posed, which I think that theists often ask in order to show that the atheist is simply a rebellious believer.  I don't see what difference it makes how I answer that question, since no one has been able to produce a single god.

And as far as your second point, Raymond Franz had all the right in the world to believe in and preach what he wanted. We believe that every human does have that right. But simply, no, you can't be one of Jehovah's Witnesses if you don't believe in what they do.

I think you missed the point: Jehovah's Witnesses do not simply stop identifying such a person as a member.  They demand that the rest of the membership --including family members and close friends-- cease all communication with the person outside of specific family or business dealings, which they encourage be kept to a minimum.  Those who do not follow this command risk being removed as well, and shunned the same way.  It is not an attempt to keep the organization free of troublemakers, as much as it is an attempt to intimidate the membership and keep them in line.

Raymond Franz preached something that didn't jive with what Jehovah's Witnesses believed.

Slight (but important) correction: Franz only differed on a few points of view, and he did not preach these.  He discussed them with one or two fellow JWs, and those were also removed from the organization in spite of their protests that they had not agreed with his views.  The organization made it clear that even the perception of independent thinking was to be dealt with very severely.  Surely you can see how this differs from your Starbucks example?

I really appreciate your point of view on this... all I am saying concerning the first thing is this, you can use the perceived misbehaving of god as a proof as to his non existence. Its just a faulty reasoning. 

To the second point, the shunning practice is scriptural. Its a lot harder to stomach when you don't believe in the veracity of scriptures but Ray Franz did believe in them. Clearly his views were not so minor that he and others left because of them. Yes, they left. They could have "conformed" and continued to be witnesses and kept their views to themselves but they were important enough that they couldn't. And you only know one side of that story. I'm sure anyone would agree that a person who feels spurned usually doesn't come across things in the most unbiased of ways. I personally have found this when talking to ex-mormons or ex-catholics etc

[Esquilax]

And for me, I can reason that a god would have certain requirements with consequences. I personally don't think that mortgage companies are evil but I do believe their purpose is to make money. So it doesn't fit their purpose to let people live in houses that do not pay their mortgage.

And if those requirements are "absolute obedience on even the most unimportant points," and the consequences are "immediate death," as they clearly are for the christian god as described in the bible, then one cannot reasonably claim that this god does not wish to inflict worship via fear. Fear is the only appropriate response to a god who historically burns entire towns for disobedience and transmutes women to salt for turning around.

But this does nothing for reasoning whether or not a god exists. At best, its an argument that god is not all good

Well sure, but you made more than one claim, the last of which being one of god's intentions, which it pays to address on its own merits, if that's germane. I can both believe god doesn't exist and find fault in individual claims you make about him based on his descriptions simultaneously.