Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

unconscious irony[change source]

"They share their beliefs about God with other people." Is this meant to be ironic? Totnesmartin 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There might be some in it. However, the statement is understandable. There supposedly still are sects that claim to be secret societies. Telling someone outside you are in might have bad implications. Also some religious groups are more open towards outsiders than others.. --Eptalon 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

links critical[change source]

why do we need criticism of the religion on the page? Jesse James squeeze the trigger 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Would the idea of an encyclopedia not be: Here is the information, those are the views that exist. Based on those views you can decide yourself what to believe?- If we left out the critical links, the information would be one-sided. --Eptalon (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that an article must present negative sentiment along with the positive to present a neutral one. I looked at the Roman Catholic article and I did not see the information presented in such a left side right side manner. Yet the article seems not to be off balance. I stop well short of inserting negative information into the article though much is available. Please consider removing the negative spin from the Jehovah's Witness article. Thank you. Jesse James squeeze the trigger 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a bit of a problem we still have. There are many religious communities; some are infavor of what a certain community does, others are against it; It would therefore be very good if links critical to (whatever community) could be added; as to Roman Catholicism, I don't know if you know that, but Opus Dei is a group officially endorsed by the Catholic Church; some people have said the organisation has characteristics of a cult or a sect. I will post something to simple talk, as your aguments look valid. --Eptalon (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Standard English version of this Wikipedia entry does not contain those links. This article does not need a list of critical websites - these edits are from small group of detractors (perhaps persons disfellowshiped from the Jehovah's Witnesses, or similar) trying to link to websites that support their view. McDonalds has people who criticise that corporation. People criticise the concept of jazz. That does not mean we need a prominent list of links to websites critical to McDonalds or jazz in their respective articles. Also, before you reintroduce the criticism section, please see: WP: Criticism. Random, unsourced, uncommon opinions are not welcome in a reception section. Please note that whoever added that section is treading on the thin ice of slander and discrimination.
While I don't necessarily agree to critical websites and a critical theme in the Opus Dei article, this is a different ballgame. Just because its "said" that people are cultist, baby eaters, etc. by their detractors, that doesn't necessarily mean the view should be prominently displayed in an article. For example, "many people" believe that Mormons are heretics, insane, cultists, etc. by their detractors. Would you champion the idea of making those views prominent in the latter day saints article? Even still, humanitarian organisations (including the European Court of Human Rights), institutes of psychiatry and religious studies, and historians disagree with the idea that Jehovah's Witnesses are cultists, brainwashers, Russian spies, American spies, or baby eaters. Its generally agreed that these claims arise from religious or governmental organisations (such as the Soviet Union's KGB) which attempted to stop the spread of Jehovah's Witnesses' influence through their aggressive preaching work. --Oranges&Lemons (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect[change source]

There is something I think is very incorrect in this article. "They also think that only their religion is true, and only their believers will survive Armageddon." I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and we do not think that only Jehovah's Witnesses will survive Armageddon. We beleive only those who refuse to repant/ continue to oppose god will be destroyed. We also believe that in the great ressurection, almost everyone will be ressurected and given a second chance furing Christ's millenial reign.--64.230.15.56 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note: anyone can change Wikipedia; I therefore invite you to create an account, and correct the mistake. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference list[change source]

I'm new to Simple English Wikipedia. There are no references for this article. Is that standard? Mandmelon (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, every article has verifiable sources. If this one doesn't then none have been found (or no one has taken the time to find some). If you know of sources, feel free to add them. --Eptalon (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV - Article Written by Bethel, the JW HQ[change source]

This is my first Simple English wikipedia article. The tone of this article is very pro-Witness. Wikipedia articles should be neutral. One can see why active Witnesses would be drawn to Simple English rather than English wikipedia. Certainly all the failed prophecies should be referenced. The sexual abuse damage awards by CA courts should be added. Critique of the high control of Witnesses should be added. The Witnesses are classified as a New Religious Movement by the regular wikipedia. This should be mentioned, along with the high volume of claims of a religious cult. Does Simple English require simplistic minds? I don't believe so. When I learned French in college ( an education that the Witnesses would deny) we studied classic works, not dumbed down works of French literature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talkcontribs)

Hello, 75Janice. Anyone can edit articles here. If you think that this article should be more neutral, then please go ahead and change it, as you see fit. Please do not forget to add sources; esp. for controversial subjects, good sourcing is important. --Eptalon (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I WAS NEVER DISFELLOWSHIPPED. ELAINE PAGELS WAS NEVER A WITNESS. CROSSAN WAS NEVER A WITNESS.[change source]

I checked the Roman Catholic article. Witnesses take all apostates for utter fools. We are not. Not that I truly believe many apostate views. The Roman Catholic article states that Roman Catholics believe....Believe... is essential. belief is not a fact. This is propaganda in its purest form. Distort the truh to lie. Excuser moi. Lie. Lie. Tell lies and provide no context. Do not tell the whole truth. There is a big difference between believe and tradition and saying that "Witnesses study the Bible." What Bible? What literature? The Watchtower. People understand the WT is a lie rag. Lies. Not facts, beliefs.....include such doubtful doctrine as.....Witnesses do not believe in the Trnity. Most Christians do believe in the Trinity. Most Christians believe that Christ is central. Witnesses do not. Witnesses believe that Jesus is the son of god. Witnesses believe he is Michael. No one did in early Christianity. Witnesses believe they practice early Christianity. People who know early Christianity do not believe this.

Look Witnesses will always argue. They have nothing better to do. There are experts at arguing in baby English at Bethel. Belief is not a fact. Never was and never will be. Maybe when Christ comes again, in power and glory, world without end, Amen. Belief will be fact. Christ, come. Maranatha, Christ. Christ, come. These Witness fools make me angry. Please use me as a vessel. Please make me sharp. Help me speak truth to power. Your Truth. the truth that passeth all understanding. Let all mortal flesh keep silent and with fear and trembling stand. Oh, excuse me, again Let, all animals and humans that die keep quiet. Fear not, fear no. Do not shake. No. Shake. No. Help me. Christ. Help. Ignorance is hard. Then again, you know a lot about ignorance. Christ, you know it ain't easy. you know how hard it can be. The way things are going, they are going to crucify me. Christ, I doubt that any Bethel fool would hurt me with the NYPD on high alert and the FBI one phone call away. There are emotional hurts. You know everything I can wish before I can speak it. Thank you, Christ. Atheists are great sources of information, too. Thank you, Christ.