OUTLAW,
I'm fully aware who started the thread, but I don't give a hoot. If we call people names simply because we cannot comprehend why they do not agree with us, then we are not ready for a discussion, hence the playground, thread-starter or not.
Snowbird,
Anyone else who sees a need to add to or subtract from plain Scriptural teaching is, imo, an anti-Christ.
There are "plain" scriptural teachings? If so, there are few who are not the Anti-Christ in your worldview. Masses of liberal Christians are guilty of theological tweaking esp with the "not-so-plain" scriptures. Little wonder that JWs would escape that labelling then. Not saying that the latter are "liberal Christians". Not at all.
VW,
I never said that the JWs were pro-Christ. But that doesn't make them anti-Christ by default. I am fully aware that, compared to the mainstream churches, their Jesus occupies a very tamed role. But he still has a role nonetheless.
If it is true what you say about the goal of the JW ministry: to actively "destroy/demolish whatever relationship one has with Jesus", or in the case of non-Christians to see that "a personal relationship with Jesus is NOT formed", then the WTS must be the Anti-Christ. But how is this achieved? Please elaborate.
Throughout my years as a JW, I have never seen an active and deliberate attempt to sever the householder from Jesus. If Jesus takes a secondary role to Jehovah, it is because of their theology about the nature of Christ. And if you were ever a JW, you should already know this. The same goes for their failure to focus on developing a relationship with Jesus, it is because Jesus is merely Son of God, the focus is on Jehovah. But JWs do not remove the Gospel from their Bibles. They've published a book about Jesus. You may disagree greatly with what they have to say about him, but I don't see how their teachings are hostile towards the Son of God.
If what the JWs teach about Christ makes them anti-Christ, are the Churches then haters of God the Father? Can I justly conclude that most mainstream Christians are "anti-Jehovah" since there is such little emphasis on Him? Can I say that they have replaced Jehovah's face with that of Jesus Christ? I could. But it wouldn't bother mainstream Christians very much. Because I suspect most of them are proudly addicted toJesus. "Fair enough", I say. "Whatever catches your fancy", I say. But it is based upon that kind devotion to Jesus, I'm guessing, that we are calling JWs/WTS the anti-Christ. Because they approach Jesus differently. And that I feel is the most pathetic reason to convict them.
There is no way that the Jesus-fever found in Christendom can be found in JW circles. No way. But that doesn't make the JWs the Anti-Christ. They're just a different breed. They are entitled to their version of Christ as much as you are entitled to yours.
You are welcome to convince me otherwise, though.
INQ
