Your Christian Identity

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is that your decision based on what you think, or based on scripture?

I find it interesting that people who are not even Christian don't find those words decent, not appropriate. Yet professed Christians do.

Why do you think that is? Why do many people find those words disgusting... and where do you draw the line?

It's my opinion. I said those words have many meanings and usages. It depends on the situation. Some usages of them are harmful and Christians shouldn't speak badly about others, yes. But you don't need to use "cuss words" to do that. What is considered a "cuss word" is cultural and, at times, rather arbitrary. Some of those words were previously accepted and normal to use in conversation, until tastes changed for whatever reason.

People like or dislike a lot of things, based on their tastes.

 

[nPeace]

Hi nPeace. Good afternoon. Thank you. My upbringing was good, but I give Yahweh all the glory for that. I actually grew up in a broken home, however, with the commandments, especially to honour my parents, I was able to come to appreciate them and I was happy. I grew up in my faith and have always been part of the Assemblies of Yahweh, and have always tried to observe the Laws of Yahweh. Although my focus was mostly upon Yahweh in my youth, as a Father that I could rely on, confide in and come to, I came to greatly appreciate Yahshua the Messiah after my baptism, for forgiving my sins, bestowing the Holy Spirit, and giving me the knowledge and understanding I need to please the Father more perfectly. But yes, I have always been connected to my faith. How about you?

Very good!

Well, I too had a good upbringing.
I come from a very god-fearing family.
The only person I ever heard swear was one grandfather, but all the others... never heard a cussword.
So I was pretty sheltered. Thank Jehovah.

That start, made it easier for me to shun the world, but like you said... glory to Jehovah, because I realize he was holding my hand.

I did not know who Jehovah was, even though going to church during my entire youth, but I came to learn whom God really is, when I studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses... that cult, according to some people.

Glad to know you take the Bible seriously. ...and I appreciate your pleasantness.
I carry some razors on here.

 

[nPeace]

It's my opinion.

Ah, good.
So whose opinion matters more to you... ours or God's?

I said those words have many meanings and usages. It depends on the situation. Some usages of them are harmful and Christians shouldn't speak badly about others, yes. But you don't need to use "cuss words" to do that. What is considered a "cuss word" is cultural and, at times, rather arbitrary. Some of those words were previously accepted and normal to use in conversation, until tastes changed for whatever reason.

People like or dislike a lot of things, based on their tastes.

To a Christian, it does not depend on this world. In other words, the Christian is not molded by this system.
(Romans 12:2)
. . .stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

If we are still babes, it's understandable that we have a lot of growing up to do.
(Hebrews 5:12-14)
12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

The world is divided on whether a man can marry a man or not. It's Satan's world. No? 1 John 5:19

Hence, it does not matter what the world thinks.
Culture should not determine what Christians think.
They should be united worldwide. No?
1 Corinthians 1:10

 

[YoursTrue]

It's actually a scriptural command. 1 Corinthians 5:11; 2 John 1:10, which was communicated, by letter, to the Christian congregations.

Yes that's true. But if a person is married to someone who is disfellowshipped, for instance, he can choose what association he will have. Same with children. Parents would feed them, take them to doctor if need be. True no spiritual association. That would make sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take lessons on being an authentic Christian from a person who believes Jesus is not God but is in fact the Archangel Michael and whose spiritual authority is a group of eight guys in New York

I don't have to take such holier-than-thou nonsense and I won't

I believe in God, I believe that Jesus is God, I believe Jesus created the universe, I believe he died for my sins, I believe he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven and will at some point return and I try my best to live accordingly, because he is my Lord and Master

I am therefore an authentic Christian.....

May I say something here? Or rather ask, if Jesus is God equal to two more persons called God, would you say it was only Jesus equal to the two other persons that died?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ah, good.
So whose opinion matters more to you... ours or God's?


To a Christian, it does not depend on this world. In other words, the Christian is not molded by this system.
(Romans 12:2)
. . .stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

If we are still babes, it's understandable that we have a lot of growing up to do.
(Hebrews 5:12-14)
12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

The world is divided on whether a man can marry a man or not. It's Satan's world. No? 1 John 5:19

Hence, it does not matter what the world thinks.
Culture should not determine what Christians think.
They should be united worldwide. No?
1 Corinthians 1:10

Your preaching here is really irrelevant to what I said. I should've suspected that that's all you wanted to do in this thread - preach and be condescending. I'm already a member of the "whore of Babylon" in the eyes of your sect, anyway.

 

[Windwalker]

(Hebrews 12:9-11) 9 Furthermore, our human fathers used to discipline us, and we gave them respect. Should we not more readily submit ourselves to the Father of our spiritual life and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time according to what seemed good to them, but he does so for our benefit so that we may partake of his holiness. 11 True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Contrary to what some parents may mistakenly believe, children who are not regularly disciplined are not happy. In fact, failure to discipline children often results in kids who are unhappy, angry, and even resentful. To those around them, a child who is not disciplined will be unpleasant company, and a child without discipline may find it difficult to make friends.

Contrary to what people claim, shunning actually is a form of discipline that helps not only the one being disciplined, buy all in the congregation.
It protects them from a wrong course, or being influence by those who pursue a wrong course.
(1 Corinthians 15:33-34) 33 Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits. 34 Come to your senses in a righteous way and do not practice sin, for some have no knowledge of God. I am speaking to move you to shame.

It also helps save the one being disciplined. That's good, for sure.

Do you consider burning your children with lit cigarettes, putting their hands on hot stoves, locking them into closets for several days without food or water, throwing them out on the street, beating them with sticks, etc, to be a valid form of loving correction and discipline? Since when is torture considered loving correction When you can answer that honestly, then I'll address the rest of what you've said.

But bear in mind, I've already addressed every point you've raised. I think you just breezed over my posts to that other poster, without you actually taking the time to read them. But in the meantime, just start with that simple question here in this post. Do you see torture as a valid form of loving correction. Yes, or no?

 

[2ndpillar]

You might as well have asked, what if the Bible isn't actually a book from God... but you have suggested that, haven't you?
So, can you determine if it is, or not?
Why would anyone want to identify themselves as Christian, if the very book Christianity is based on, is not something they are convinced is true? That makes no sense.
That's equivalent to someone pretending to love their wife, when they really don't... Being a hypocrite.

Don't you think it would be best for such a person to be honest?
So, my title is appropriate Eddi. What's your Christian identity? Do you have one? Do you lose it at times? Is it something one can strip off, and put back on, like they would a shirt?

Well according to Yeshua's message of Matthew 13 regarding the "kingdom of heaven", the NT would be the message of the "enemy"/devil mixed "among" the message of the "son of man", in the same field/book/NT. Which would be the same as the "leaven" of the Pharisees (Paul), mixed with the bread of life, the "Word of God" (Revelation 19:13). According to the Roman Catholic church, the universal "Christian" church per the decree of the Roman emperor in 367 A.D., their identity is built around the Nicene Trinity concept. According to the Nicene Creed, it is built around the false notion that Mary was a virgin, that Yeshua was God's only son (Job 1:6), that there is only one apostolic church, which is the Roman church, and that Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, whereas that apparently doesn't terminate the judgment for sin, which is death and disease. And yes, hypocrisy, the leaven of the Pharisees, the false gospel of grace/cross/lawlessness (tare seed), is the foundation of the "Christian" church, which according to Yeshua in Matthew 13:30, leads to the "furnace of fire", the "great tribulation"/Har-Magedon.

 

[2ndpillar]

Your preaching here is really irrelevant to what I said. I should've suspected that that's all you wanted to do in this thread - preach and be condescending. I'm already a member of the "whore of Babylon" in the eyes of your sect, anyway.

If you are a member of "her", the "whore of Babylon", then you must be acquainted with her plagues. (Revelation 18:4)? Good luck with that. The good thing about the "plagues", are that there is generally a termination date, or an end to suffering, often referred to as death. Something to look forward to with regards to the suffering. (Matthew 7:13)

 

[nPeace]

Do you consider burning your children with lit cigarettes, putting their hands on hot stoves, locking them into closets for several days without food or water, throwing them out on the street, beating them with sticks, etc, to be a valid form of loving correction and discipline? Since when is torture considered loving correction When you can answer that honestly, then I'll address the rest of what you've said.

But bear in mind, I've already addressed every point you've raised. I think you just breezed over my posts to that other poster, without you actually taking the time to read them. But in the meantime, just start with that simple question here in this post. Do you see torture as a valid form of loving correction. Yes, or no?

This is irrelevant to anything I said... Unless you think that disciplining means doing all those things. If you don't, then you can start by addressing what I actually said.

 

[nPeace]

Your preaching here is really irrelevant to what I said. I should've suspected that that's all you wanted to do in this thread - preach and be condescending. I'm already a member of the "whore of Babylon" in the eyes of your sect, anyway.

It looks like preaching to you? Why... bcause we are using the Bible?
Do you have something against scripture Frankenstein?
I thought this was the 'Scriptural Debates' forum. Am I mistaken?

 

[Windwalker]

This is irrelevant to anything I said... Unless you think that disciplining means doing all those things. If you don't, then you can start by addressing what I actually said.

The heck it's not relevant! While I agree one can and should correct and discipline those in error, actions which are traumatic and damaging, violet or torturous against, are not helpful. They are damaging. Those are not to be considered by any standard as "disciplining".

Shunning, where you refuse to talk to the person, disown your own family members, put them out on the street destitute and alone, are all forms of torture. It is abuse. Abuse is not to be understood in the same context as discipline. A father that punches his children in the face, for instance is not disciplining them, as much as he might like to lie to himself it is. Shunning has severe negative consequences. It is an act of violence against them.

So do you believe torture and abuse are valid forms of discipline. Yes, or no?

Bonus question. When the Bible says we should treat those who refuse to listen to the church as "pagans and tax collectors", what specifically does that mean to you? Shunning them? Calling them unclean and hiding your righteous face from them? Please explain.

If you answer my two questions above first, then I'll be happy to help you understand scripture when it talks about discipline and correction in a proper, compassionate sense. Putting family members on extinction, is abuse, not correction.

BTW, I've already answered every single one of your points in the very quotes you grabbed of mine where I was responding to the other poster, whom I believe now understands the truth of them, since he has dropped out of arguing his original claims. I do not believe you actually read them. So take your questions, then read the posts of mine you quoted, and you'll find each of your points was already addressed and answered.

 

[nPeace]

The heck it's not relevant! While I agree one can and should correct and discipline those in error, actions which are traumatic and damaging, violet or torturous against, are not helpful. They are damaging. Those are not to be considered by any standard as "disciplining".

Actions which are traumatic and damaging, are relative to each subject, based on what you are referring to.
So, what exactly are you referring to. What we started talking about - shunning, or something else... like torture?

Shunning, where you refuse to talk to the person, disown your own family members, put them out on the street destitute and alone, are all forms of torture. It is abuse. Abuse is not to be understood in the same context as discipline. A father that punches his children in the face, for instance is not disciplining them, as much as he might like to lie to himself it is. Shunning has severe negative consequences. It is an act of violence against them.

Says you, but that is not factual.
When you produce those facts, I will be willing to look at them.

In the meantime, here are some facts:
(Proverbs 13:24) Whoever holds back his rod hates his son, But the one who loves him disciplines him diligently.

(Hebrews 12:11) True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness.

Is that true?
It's possible to interview a few who were "shunned".
Many who have fallen into serious sin have admitted that the firm action the elders took gave them the jolt they needed to come to their senses, change their course of action, and return to Jehovah.

Disfellowshipping among JWs, takes place only if a member of the congregation unrepentantly engages in gross sin.

To take no disciplinary action in a case like that, is the same as turning a blind eye to repeated sin in the congregation.
That tarnishes the reputation of the congregation, and the God it represents.

Doing so, exposes the congregation to corruption, and worst, a disapproved state, as it cuts off the free flow of Jehovah's holy spirit.

Paul said, ". . .hand such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 5:5)

The sinner ends up where their desires have led them - part of Satan's world. Not the clean congregation of Jehovah.

So disfellowshiping accomplishes only very good things.
It upholds Jehovah’s standards.
It preserves the spiritual cleanness of the congregation.
It helps the unrepentant one see how serious their sin is, and it may help them come to their senses.
The discipline is necessary.

Actually, this is the same principle used by family members all around the world.
I believe you watch television.
Have you ever seen a movie where a family member becomes a "thug" joins a gang, and gets involved in illegal activity. What does the father try to do for the younger son - the brother? He tries to protect him from the influence... and yes, it does involve limiting association.
In some cases, yes, it does involve the "thug" leaving the home.

This is real life. We can interview such individuals.

Question for you.
Are you saying that obeying these scriptures is unChristian?

So do you believe torture and abuse are valid forms of discipline. Yes, or no?

That's an irrelevant question. You were told that - not in those words - by @YoursTrue

Anyway, I'll answer. What some people call torture, is based on their subjective and sometimes biased worldview. So your question is a loaded one, in the first place.
For example, a wayward child who wants to go partying with friends her mom considers bad association may exclaim, "Mom. this is torture!"
It's not. It's just her being rebellious.
This is the case with many today who want to do their own thing, and believe what they want. So they obey only what suits them. The Bible to them is like a script they can change at whim, to suit their worldview.
I answered.

Giving a yes or no answer to a l loaded question is not wise, nor beneficial... to anyone.

Bonus question. When the Bible says we should treat those who refuse to listen to the church as "pagans and tax collectors", what specifically does that mean to you? Shunning them? Calling them unclean and hiding your righteous face from them? Please explain.

It means this...
(2 Thessalonians 3:14) . . .But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed.
What does that mean? It means what it says.

If you answer my two questions above first, then I'll be happy to help you understand scripture when it talks about discipline and correction in a proper, compassionate sense. Putting family members on extinction, is abuse, not correction.

I'm listening. Help me understand the scriptures.

BTW, I've already answered every single one of your points in the very quotes you grabbed of mine where I was responding to the other poster, whom I believe now understands the truth of them, since he has dropped out of arguing his original claims. I do not believe you actually read them. So take your questions, then read the posts of mine you quoted, and you'll find each of your points was already addressed and answered.

No worries. I did see your arguments.
I saw 1) you went for a scripture (Hebrew Scriptures / OT) that does not apply to Christians, when we are actually discussing Christian teachings. 2) You dismissed Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, as if by doing so that somehow makes his letter to the Corinthians null and void.
...amd that's all I saw... none of which answers any of my questions, nor addresses anything I said.
So no. You have not already answered every single one of my points.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you are a member of "her", the "whore of Babylon", then you must be acquainted with her plagues. (Revelation 18:4)? Good luck with that. The good thing about the "plagues", are that there is generally a termination date, or an end to suffering, often referred to as death. Something to look forward to with regards to the suffering. (Matthew 7:13)

No, I'm not a member of any whore of Babylon. That's just a bigoted insult that many JWs like to use against the Catholic Church, and I was making fun of that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It looks like preaching to you? Why... bcause we are using the Bible?
Do you have something against scripture Frankenstein?
I thought this was the 'Scriptural Debates' forum. Am I mistaken?

No, I love scripture (my sig is a verse from the Bible, obviously). It's the attitudes of some human beings I don't like.

 

[nPeace]

No, I love scripture (my sig is a verse from the Bible, obviously). It's the attitudes of some human beings I don't like.

...but that often goes both ways Frankenstein.
We often get vexed with oneanother, or have serious differences with personalities.
Men actually commit violent acts against one another, and it's often not called for.
Anger is very prevalent today.
Even the Pharisees hated Jesus, for no just cause.
Well, they hated what he said, because it wasn't pleasant to their ears.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I'm not a member of any whore of Babylon. That's just a bigoted insult that many JWs like to use against the Catholic Church, and I was making fun of that.

By the way, just wondering how you view the following?
Exodus 20:4,5 - You shall not make yourself a statue nor any form in the skies above or on the earth beneath or in the water beneath the earth: you shall not do reverence to them nor worship them; because I, your God Jehovah, am a jealous deity, visiting fathers’ guilt on children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren for those who hate me, (Bible in Living English)

 

[metis]

Even the Pharisees hated Jesus, for no just cause.

Not all.

On top of this, Jesus was operating out of a Pharisee paradigm, thus what we read in the Gospel with his teachings are very much a part of Jewish "commentary".

 

[Windwalker]

Actions which are traumatic and damaging, are relative to each subject, based on what you are referring to.
So, what exactly are you referring to. What we started talking about - shunning, or something else... like torture?

So you embrace the idea of relativism when it suits you?

No, there are some things which are universally considered psychologically and emotionally damaging. Abandoning your children for instance can scar them for life, leaving wounds which never fully heal. Abusing them as children when they are vulnerable and in your trust and care leave irreparable damage on them, and as has been shown time and again, creates another generation of child abusers themselves.

Shunning in extreme cases, has the same effect as a form of torture. This has been studied in various fields of psychology: Shunning - Wikipedia.

A key detrimental effect of some of the practices associated with shunning relate to their effect on relationships, especially family relationships. At its extremes, the practices may destroy marriages, break up families, and separate children and their parents. The effect of shunning can be very dramatic or even devastating on the shunned, as it can damage or destroy the shunned member's closest familial, spousal, social, emotional, and economic bonds.

Shunning contains aspects of what is known as relational aggression in psychological literature. When used by church members and member-spouse parents against excommunicant parents it contains elements of what psychologists call parental alienation. Extreme shunning may cause traumas to the shunned (and to their dependents) similar to what is studied in the psychology of torture.​

Now I ask you, what on earth is Christlike in actions towards others that has effects like that? Did Jesus ever treat other human beings like that? Then why would you if you claim to be a follower of Jesus?

Says you, but that is not factual.
When you produce those facts, I will be willing to look at them.

Read the available literature that has been researched extensively on it. The link to the Wiki article on it links several external references to it. But if you just want to dismiss the experts because you have a different idea you think came from scripture, then I'd say that you're not being honest. If you refuse to listen to the experts, then you can pretty much justify anything you want to do, like owning other human beings because you can find they that did in the Bible too.

Here's another one of countless references you can read, should you be sincere in wanting to understand the truth about how damaging this is, and how is it considered a form of abuse, and not discipline. A form of abuse, a social death penalty: The practice of shunning and its consequences - Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières

The psychological consequences of being shunned can best be explained as a social death penalty. The immediate effects are isolation from family and the community. There is an attempt to make sense of why this is happening to them. How could the family have rejected them? The person then starts to attack their sense of self, which is also why shunning is often perceived as the death of personhood. This leads to feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and worthlessness, depression, low self-esteem, suicidal ideations and self-harming behaviours.

Also, researchers in psychology have observed a high prevalence of PTSD amongst people who have been shunned. To get a more clear idea of the pain that shunning can cause, researchers have observed that even being a bystander to shunning can have dire psychological consequences. The psychological consequences of being shunned are long. Although, externally there may not be any wounds, internally the wounds are deep and long-lasting.

Working therapeutically with people who have been shunned is very challenging. All of the negative beliefs that they hold about themselves are often, in the eyes of the victim, reinforced by the act of being shunned. Also, individuals who have been shunned live with psychological agony, often for the rest of their life. In the long term, shunning becomes a long-term psychological torture.
​

All emphasis mine. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a ton of information out there on this. You just have to be willing to look at it.

In the meantime, here are some facts:
(Proverbs 13:24) Whoever holds back his rod hates his son, But the one who loves him disciplines him diligently.

That is not a fact that shunning is not abusive. Abuse is not the same thing as discipline. Any spouse-beating, child-abusing parent seizes up that same verse to vindicate their mistreatment of others as biblical, and you should know that. "This is for you own good, because you need to learn that according to God, the man is supposed to be the head of the household!," the wife-beater says to his wife whom he just blackened both her eyes and cracked her jaw with his fists!

It's not discipline to beat your wife or your children. It's not discipline to shun them. It's abuse. It causes them psychological and emotional damage that will scar them for life. That is NOT an act of Love! It is an act of aggression and violence. That verse cannot be used to justify abuse. Ask any judge who throws the child-beating parent into jail when they quote that verse in court to defend themselves at trial.

You can try to use scripture to defend anything you want, like owning other human beings, but is that the Spirit of Love you find in the Jesus of scripture? Does he ever act that way, or teach others to do that?

Many who have fallen into serious sin have admitted that the firm action the elders took gave them the jolt they needed to come to their senses, change their course of action, and return to Jehovah.

I can hear the man who stuck his wife on the jaw when she talked back to him in an argument. "You just needed a 'jolt to come to your senses' [as you put it], wife!". BS. Abuse is never Christian. Jesus never beats his sheep, kicks, them, threatens them, makes them feel unloved and unwanted, never casts them out into the street and tells them they are no longer his children in order to "discipline" them. That isn't Christian. It's Satanic. It's abusive.

Disfellowshipping among JWs, takes place only if a member of the congregation unrepentantly engages in gross sin.

What do you consider "gross sin"? Doubting their beliefs? Having a different opinion about God?

That tarnishes the reputation of the congregation, and the God it represents.

So the church is more interested in its image to others, than it is about the psychological and emotional wellbeing of human beings? How is that being like Jesus? Is that how Jesus acted, narcissistically worried about protecting his self-image to others at all costs?

Doing so, exposes the congregation to corruption, and worst, a disapproved state, as it cuts off the free flow of Jehovah's holy spirit.

Wow. To cut them off from God, huh? Wow. And you think the Catholics are evil? Wow. Just wow.

How is any of that anything like the Jesus of scripture? Is this how your own parents treated you growing up? Cutting you off from their love if you failed to please them?? You don't have to answer that, but just think long and hard about that one. That is not what the Love of God is like, I can guarantee you that.

Anyway, I'll answer. What some people call torture, is based on their subjective and sometimes biased worldview. So your question is a loaded one, in the first place.

No. It is based upon the tons of research that has been done in the various fields of psychology that show how it is universally damaging to the human psyche. Unless you just wish to disregard the sciences and claim you know better because you're a "bible expert", or some other nonsense.

It means this...
(2 Thessalonians 3:14) . . .But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed.
Whay does that mean? It means what it says.

No. It doesn't mean that. I asked you specifically how did Jesus treat the pagans and tax collectors. And you did not answer me. You dodged over to that verse in 2 Thes, instead of answering.

I'll answer it for you. He treated them with love and compassion. He NEVER shunned them. Ever. All you need to do is read the gospels, and you will never see him disowning them. So when Jesus says you should treat them as "pagans and tax-collectors", he is saying you should treat them with compassion and love, not shunning them, and saying "You are unworthy of me! I shall not acknowledge your existence".

I'm listening. Help me understand the scriptures.

We'll see if you are listening. And then I'll help you understand once you show a willingness to hear.

 

[2ndpillar]

No, I'm not a member of any whore of Babylon. That's just a bigoted insult that many JWs like to use against the Catholic Church, and I was making fun of that.

I don't know. The initial leader of the reformation movement, Luther, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, showed the Roman Catholic Church as the "Whore of Babylon" in his rendition of his NT. Not that the reformation churches aren't bigoted or simply wrong, but the JWs and Mormons may not be the only churches supporting such a notion. The pagan position of Pontifex Maximus, held by the Roman emperors, was declared pagan in 376 by the Roman emperor Gratian, and dropped, but picked up by the bishop of Rome in 378 to carry on the pagan traditions of Rome. I went to a public school in the 1950s, and the notion I got was that the Protestants all felt that the Catholic church was Babylon the Great, and I only knew of one Mormon family in the community. That supposedly changed in the 60s after the Ecumenical Council, when the churches sheathed their knifes, and entered into a truce, and stopped throwing stones at each other.