by Undecided 18 Replies latest jw friends
Christ came with a sword to break up families if they don't follow the line. He is all that matters. You have to reject your families if they don't follow Jesus(Jehovah according to JWs) so this proves they are right. You can just give the Elders a glass of water and you will not lose your reward. You apostates better watch your behind.
Ken P.
You're right undecided, that's about the only prediction the JW's have gotten right but they're correct on this one.
You have to reject your families if they don't follow Jesus(Jehovah
Funny thing is, many of the other cults have that rule as well. Some of them even have their followers living in communes, and not able to contact their family and friends even if they want to. Any cult could use that scripture as"proof" that they are the true religion.
Yes, my Aunt (Catholic) shunned her son when he started 'living in sin'. And when my Uncle finally converted to Catholicism it put a division between him and his mother.
This is a very uncomfortable scripture for christians to try and explain. Although, the JWs did seem to use this scripture alot.
Cellist
Its not hard to explain .. And it doesn't have to mean that JWs are right in what they are doing either.
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
When I left to follow Jesus, I had to leave behind my family. If I would have stayed in the borg, the family would have remained together. By leaving, I lost my life for the sake of Jesus .. and then I found "the real life". If I would have stayed, I would have lost my life. I hope I am making sense. I chose to love Jesus more than my father or mother. These scriptures always comfort me -- and are in no way hard for me to explain.
To me, Matt. 10:34,35 is damning evidence that Jesus wanted much more than to help people.
No religion, polity, or ideal is worth destroying families. I guess it goes to show how it's much more popular today to put yourself and your own welfare first rather than that of the family unit.
Doing the right thing indeed can end up dividing families. But should a religion be setting that as a goal?
MUST a family be divided to prove it is the truth? What nonsense.
Ok, so all you Jehovah's Witnesses out there on this "apostate website" . Do you not know by being on this website it is against what the Society teaches, and is therefore against your beleifs? You can't tell people your beleifs are right when your on this website knowing you shouldn't be. Your a bunch of hypocrites.
And another thing. Ok, so the bible teaches that Christ would divide familys. So the Society enforces these disfellowshipping rules that tear apart a family unit ? And rules that say that the family cannot keep in contact with a disfellowshipped person ? Witnesses are extremists, and even though they might have a few things correct, I think they have this rule wrong.
keith
Hi Keith,
This is a 'tongue-in-cheek' thread. Nobody that's posted yet thinks that the JWs are the True Religion.
Cellist
Here's a couple different interpretations of this scripture from Wikepedia:
Interpretations
Some Christians and non-Christians believe that in these passages Jesus was advocating the use of violence. Applying a literal interpretation, they take the word "sword" to mean a literal metalsword and, by extension, warfare. In that case "division", as used in the verse from the Book of Luke, would tend to mean strife and war. For Christians accepting this interpretation, these passages may be seen as part of a justification for just wars and capital punishment. For non-Christians accepting this interpretation—particularly those who are philosophically opposed to violence—the Matthew and Luke passages are often seen as evidence of a moral deficiency in Jesus's teachings and therefore in Christianity. Many non-Christians go even further, claiming that this verse contradicts other teachings of Jesus, and therefore conclude that since the Bible is not self-consistent Christianity must be false.
Other Christians hold that Jesus is using the word "sword" as a metaphor to describe the division that his message would bring between those who accept it and those who reject it. A further and more mystical interpretation represents a personal conflict, or evolution, as in a rebirth. In the context of the passage, Jesus was warning his disciples. Whether internal or external, conflict will come for Christians. "It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for them."
They conclude that this division between righteous and unrighteous is the "sword" which Jesus brought. And as a result of this division:
Rather than advocating violence, Jesus was warning his disciples that they would encounter violence from those unwilling to accept the Truth. Nowhere in the passage does he instruct them to harm anyone. On the contrary, he instructs them to heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out demons, and explicitly tells them to be "as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves." These are all instructions consistent with his message of love and grace. He does not command them to resort to violence with those who reject the message. On the contrary, he tells them to leave the homes of those who reject them, because God alone will be the judge of those who reject the Truth.
This interpretation that the Truth will cause division between those who accept it and those who reject it is also reflected in John 1:10-13 (RSV), which reports of Jesus:
See also Rejection of Jesus.
A similar theme appears in Romans 1:20-21 (RSV):
In the above passage, Paul (the author of Romans) does not advocate violence against the wicked. On the contrary, he indicates that the worst punishment for the sins of wicked is to turn them over to their own desires, because the wicked are perfectly capable of destroying themselves.
