Author Topic: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness  (Read 348 times)

Online MaximGun

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 968
  • Thanked: 1186 times
  • Religion: Trad Catholic
Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« on: October 14, 2021, 05:34:31 AM »
I have a JV friend who is claiming that the Bible is a complete guide to life and answers all of life's questions.

My argument is that the Bible often says things that are not clear and on many topics does not say much at all and therefore morals have to be inferred from other moral principles.  This then leads to 2000 cults coming up with different morals.


The JV friend's post is in quotes and my response is below.

Quote
Understood,

as an example, take the one point you raised about divorce. Ignoring what people say for a moment, what does the Bible say?

Malachi 2:16 “For I hate divorce,” says Jehovah” 

Matthew 19:8 “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” Pretty clear what Jesus says here.

So, forgetting all the individual points of view, the Bible is pretty clear about how God feels about divorce a,d what we should do.

Will pick up on your other points next time.

 

Is it clear?  I think not.

"and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Mt 5:31, 32) Also, after telling the Pharisees that the Mosaic concession of divorcing their wives was not the arrangement that had prevailed “from the beginning,” Jesus said: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Mt 19:8, 9)

At face value this means you can divorce due to adultery, fornication, sexual immorality (what those consist of and where the limits of them are is a matter of judgement, it is not specified in the Bible).  But can you get married to another person again after divorcing?  That is not clear from the Bible at all.  Perhaps the divorce purely allows you to protect your assets and income and livelihood from a cheating spouse and stops a spouse from being cuckolded.  It allows him/her to divorce, but not remarry.

Can a never married Christian man marry a divorced woman whose husband cheated on her without committing adultery?  Matthew 5:31, 32 would suggest she cannot.  It specifically says whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.  It does not specify the circumstances of that divorce.  So it really is not clear at all.

Also, assuming the Bible allows a new marriage after divorce, does it state that both parties can remarry in the case of adultery or only the spouse that was cheated on and did not commit sexual immorality?  If so this presents a moral dilemma.

If my cheating wife is still married to me and thus not allowed to remarry because she committed adultery then how can I marry without being a bigamist?  If she cannot remarry then it can only be because she is still married to me.  Otherwise you would need a class of people who are not married in the eyes of God but are prevented from marrying because they were married before and retain some sort of quasi-married state, but the person they were married to is now free to be married to another.

Conversely if the divorce unbinds the marriage in the sight of Jehovah and both are free to remarry then any Christian can give themselves a legitimate path to divorce and remarriage by simply committing adultery.  It would be an incentive to sin, for any couple who wanted to get divorced.  Now that we have committed adultery we can remarry.  This cannot be God's intention.  Because God hates divorce.

If God hates divorce, then the only rational position is no divorce and remarriage ever while the other spouse is alive.  If the marriage was a valid one (and many are not today because people are so confused in their minds about what marriage is), then it should be cast in stone until death do they part.  This is the only rationally consistent position with the Bible quotes above.  You can divorce to avoid being cuckolded and break your civil marriage but in the eyes of God, who hates divorce remember, you are still married and thus not free to contract another marriage.

Otherwise God should have said.  I hate divorce, but if your spouse cheats on you that is OK, I unbind you because I hate adultery even more.

He did not say that.

And why make an exception only for adultery?  What about if your husband abandons you are goes to live alone in Alaska?  Or becomes a Satanist?  Or starts biting the heads of whippets?

Adultery is a good reason to separate, and there are other good reasons, but I don't see why it is an exclusive reason to divorce and remarry.




« Last Edit: October 14, 2021, 05:36:37 AM by MaximGun »
 

Online MaximGun

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 968
  • Thanked: 1186 times
  • Religion: Trad Catholic
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2021, 07:49:49 AM »
Quote
Understood, you could argue lots of points, but if we go back to the Bible…

Malachi 2:16 “For I hate divorce,” says Jehovah”  = don’t do it
Matthew 19:8 “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” = if you really have to do it, the only grounds Jehovah will accept is adultery.
That is it. The rest would be up to your own conscience when asking yourself…

“am I complying with the above? or trying to get around it?”

Can follow up on your other points below shortly.


 

Sorry but this notion of God is ridiculous.  A laughable concept.  A God that allows you to do stuff he hates.

What about if I really have to divorce her for other perfectly sensible reasons to do with human weakness or the hardness of men's hearts?

She becomes insane and beats me with a rolling pin.
She is in a vegetative state.
She refuses to have sex with me (which is the primary purpose of marriage).
She wants to have sex but goes and deliberatly gets sterilised because she does not want children

What kind of God issues a Commandment and then allows for an "exception of adultery", "if you really have to do it?"

If I hate something then there are no exceptions.  Abortion is wrong.  There is no exception for rape.  The act of willful murder is wrong always and everywhere.

There are no exceptions for worshipping false Gods.  I really have to not keep the Sabbath day holy this week, can I have an exception?  NO!

God is God.  He does not need exceptions if He hates something.  He is not some sort of liberal who needs to be seen to be fair and allow for the weakness of men or compromise with their sin.  I reject the notion of such a God.  He sounds like a Anglican vicar.  For such a God what would be the point of forgiving people?

"Sorry God, I know there was a commandment and all that, but I really had to"


« Last Edit: October 14, 2021, 09:20:18 AM by MaximGun »
 

Offline james03

  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 10878
  • Thanked: 5804 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2021, 09:44:10 AM »
Quote
And why make an exception only for adultery?
There is no exception for adultery.  The only case Jesus mentions is fornication.  This is in reference to the jewish virginity test discussed in the Old Testament.  If your newly wed wife failed the virginity test, you could go to the temple and get a divorce.

This is the basis for the Church's teaching on annulment, in this case the marriage was a fraud so there was no marriage.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"
 

Online MaximGun

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 968
  • Thanked: 1186 times
  • Religion: Trad Catholic
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2021, 10:11:08 AM »
I think there is an exception for JWs, because they interpret that passage to mean there is an exception for fornication after the marriage and it allows for divorce.

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/divorce-bible-view/
« Last Edit: October 14, 2021, 10:26:56 AM by MaximGun »
 

Online MaximGun

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 968
  • Thanked: 1186 times
  • Religion: Trad Catholic
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2021, 10:27:47 AM »
Quote
And why make an exception only for adultery?
There is no exception for adultery.  The only case Jesus mentions is fornication.  This is in reference to the jewish virginity test discussed in the Old Testament.  If your newly wed wife failed the virginity test, you could go to the temple and get a divorce.

This is the basis for the Church's teaching on annulment, in this case the marriage was a fraud so there was no marriage.

Where is the Jewish virginity test in the old testament?
 

Online MaximGun

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 968
  • Thanked: 1186 times
  • Religion: Trad Catholic
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2021, 01:31:59 PM »
And what constitutes "Adultery" in marriage?

If we are going to use the modernized interpretation of the word porneia, or fornication, almost anything will suffice to justify a divorce – watching porn on the computer, masturbating, phone sex.  Then there is Matthew 5:27–28 (ESV).  Does "committing adultery in your heart" count as committing adultery?  It sure sounds to me like it would.  Why wouldn't it?

How can one possibly read the Bible and work out whether "adultery in the heart" counts as a justifiable reason to divorce your spouse?

Strictly speaking, legalistically one could say "Yes, Jesus said adultery was a justifiable reason for divorce" and the lusting after a woman one has "already committed adultery", as Jesus points out.  Therefore just about every red blooded married man on the planet could be legitimately divorced by his wife, because who, in all frankness, has not seen an absolutely stonkingly attractive woman and not lusted after her in his heart?

Interpreting the Bible for yourself is thus a minefield.  You could end up literally anywhere and justifying almost anything.  The average person of 100 IQ struggles to remember Pythagoras' Theorem.  So what they are going to do is latch onto some carnival barker or priest or preacher who confidently says they know what it means.  But on what authority?  Them being a good salesperson of religion is not enough for me.

Either God established that authority on earth via some sort of credible church with apostolic succession or Joe Sixpack has got absolutely no chance of reading The Bible and getting all of the morals down correctly.  Not a snowball's chance in Hell.  And 2000+ Protestant cults are proof of that.

Matthew 5:27–28 (ESV)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2021, 01:53:13 PM by MaximGun »
 

Offline ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 473
  • Thanked: 796 times
  • LET'S GO BRANDON!
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2021, 02:01:52 PM »
Sacramental marriage didn't exist in the OT.

Natural marriage can still be dissolved.
 

Offline AlNg

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2021, 02:28:26 AM »
  It specifically says whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery .
Yes it does. that is why I think that there is something seriously wrong with the Catholic annulment practice. In order to get a marriage annulment, the Catholic couple must first get a divorce. So they were married by the state and now get a divorce and then the Catholic tribunal says the marriage is annulled and they are free to remarry.
When Jesus said that if you marry a divorced woman, you commit adultery, he did not say that the marriage had to have taken place in the Church because there was no Catholic Church around at that time.
A couple is married for 15 years, and have several children. Now the wife finds herself another boyfriend and decides she wants to divorce her husband and get remarried to her new boyfriend. So she gets a Catholic marriage annulment because of some supposed defect of consent that took place 15 years ago. Well, this is just a Catholic divorce, even though they call it a marriage annulment. In the US, Catholics divorce at almost the same rate as the general population. The difference is that the Catholic divorce is approved by the marriage tribunal and is called a marriage annulment.
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian

Online MaximGun

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 968
  • Thanked: 1186 times
  • Religion: Trad Catholic
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2021, 04:52:54 AM »
In some sense the mob always rules.

In a world where people are afraid of witches a few societal outcasts are burned as witches.

In a world were mentally handicapped people are viewed as disturbing they are locked away in asylums to rot, uncared for and unseen.

In a world where panicked godless people are threatened by a virus ending their trivial and pathetic life, the 20% unvaccinated are acceptable to lock out of supermarkets.  They need to be safe.

And in a world of people addicted to pair bonding but not committing to sacramental marriage there will be more annulments.

Just as in a world of profit and return on capital and paper money there will be usury.

 
The following users thanked this post: Christe Eleison

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9217
  • Thanked: 8373 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2021, 01:55:02 PM »
  It specifically says whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery .
Yes it does. that is why I think that there is something seriously wrong with the Catholic annulment practice. In order to get a marriage annulment, the Catholic couple must first get a divorce. So they were married by the state and now get a divorce and then the Catholic tribunal says the marriage is annulled and they are free to remarry.
When Jesus said that if you marry a divorced woman, you commit adultery, he did not say that the marriage had to have taken place in the Church because there was no Catholic Church around at that time.
A couple is married for 15 years, and have several children. Now the wife finds herself another boyfriend and decides she wants to divorce her husband and get remarried to her new boyfriend. So she gets a Catholic marriage annulment because of some supposed defect of consent that took place 15 years ago. Well, this is just a Catholic divorce, even though they call it a marriage annulment. In the US, Catholics divorce at almost the same rate as the general population. The difference is that the Catholic divorce is approved by the marriage tribunal and is called a marriage annulment.
The modern (post Vatican II) annulment process destroys the indissolubility of Matrimony. The introduction of the "Psychological Immaturity" clause in marriage cases in the 1960's caused the annulments to sky-rocket since then. Not to mention Pope Francis's post "Amoris Laetitia"'s letter to the Argentine Bishops that approved the giving of Communion to people living in sin.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, Prayerful, queen.saints, AlNg

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8015
  • Thanked: 4301 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2021, 02:21:43 PM »
JW's have a translation of the bible which violates the accepted scholarly and traditional norms of East and West. It's a sort of have your cake and eat it for them.

A protestant minister Kelly Powers uses Isaiah 43:10 (You are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know, and believe Me, and understand that I Myself Am. Before Me there was no God formed, and after me there shall be none' in the Challoner D-R, and nearly identical in KJV) to debunk their fourth rate Arianism or polytheism (Jesus is not Jehovah but a god).

They use a goofy translation usually avoiding anything external to that whether Greek originals, old stuff like KJV or modern translations like NASB, ESV or NIV. Also they generally cannot explain Heaven too well which will only have space for 144,000 JWs.
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Michael Wilson

Offline AlNg

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2021, 04:01:11 PM »

The modern (post Vatican II) annulment process destroys the indissolubility of Matrimony.
Of course it does. In contrast to pre-VII, when only solid and sound reasons (such as the man is already married and does not disclose it) were allowed for an annulment, now they allow various flimsy reasons.
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, Michael Wilson, queen.saints

Offline james03

  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 10878
  • Thanked: 5804 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2021, 04:17:49 PM »
Quote
Where is the Jewish virginity test in the old testament?

Yes.  It involved a white cloth that if presented to temple was grounds for divorce due to previous fornication.  Google it, I'm too lazy to look up the cite.

 
Quote
It specifically says whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery .

  This sometimes goes over people's heads.  Adultery is sex between a married person and someone else.  So if a divorced woman remarries and has sex, the fact that the Lord identifies this as adultery shows that the "divorce" is meaningless and void.  Marriage is permanent and can't be broken.

The only system consistent with the Bible is the Catholic one on annulment.  Before Vee Poo annulments were very rare.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"
 

Offline GiftOfGod

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 853
  • Thanked: 217 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2021, 11:25:35 PM »

The modern (post Vatican II) annulment process destroys the indissolubility of Matrimony.
Of course it does. In contrast to pre-VII, when only solid and sound reasons (such as the man is already married and does not disclose it) were allowed for an annulment, now they allow various flimsy reasons.
I read that the NO grants annulments for SSPX marriages on the grounds that SSPX priests doesn't have the canonical faculties to do Matrimony. So an SSPXer woman wants to divorce, all she has to do is go to a NO tribunal, they grant it, then she becomes an FSSPer and can get married again (all while being """trad""").
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, Michael Wilson, queen.saints, AlNg

Online MaximGun

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 968
  • Thanked: 1186 times
  • Religion: Trad Catholic
Re: Debate with a Jehovah's Witness
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2021, 05:40:06 PM »
He stopped replying after I sent the following two responses.

That is the trick with JVs.  Be even more keen to convert them than they are to convert you.

Quote
Charles Taze Russell.  When Charles was eighteen he encountered Adventist preaching and began to regularly attend a Bible study. It was not long before he determined that he could not reconcile an eternal hell with a merciful God. Over the next two years he came to question many other historic Christian doctrines and became convinced that the historic creeds betrayed true Christianity.


I have absolutely no problem with Hell.  In fact, I think it is brilliant that it exists. For the good to merit Heaven, the evil must merit Hell. 

I like a merciful God, of course, but I also like a just one.  There are some real scumbags on earth.  People who abuse children.  Men who have sex holidays in Cambodia and exploit teenaged girls and even younger.  Indians who trick old people out of their savings.  Women who lie about rape and put men in jail or destroy their marriages and careers.  Doctors who do abortions for more money.  Huge number of scummy, unpious, people who don't give a second thought about helping others.

If Stalin and Mao merely face annihilation then in a sense they won relative to bad people who did not have their power during their lives.

The idea of selfish people burning in Hell for all eternity seems very just to me.  Plus the Bible is full of references on Hell.  All the early Fathers believed in it as did nearly all Christians for 1900 years.

When Scrooge in Dickens A Christmas Carol faces Hell, I am pleased.  He deserves that.  Marley deserved it also.

When Scrooge is given a second chance by his sorrow and God's mercy I am also happy.  But it is God's mercy, not mine.  God grants His mercy and I have no right to expect it for me, or others.