AC
On Wed, 1 May 2002 16:19:50 -0400, "James Bell" <jamesb@naxs.com> wrote:

James Bell
"AC" <spam@nospam.com>wrote in message news:3cd04361.72874988@news2.randori.com...

AC
On Wed, 1 May 2002 15:17:33 -0400, "James Bell" <jamesb@naxs.com> wrote:

James Bell
"AC" <spam@nospam.com>wrote in message news:3ccec08d.197127834@news2.randori.com...

AC
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 04:18:47 -0400, Flame of the West <jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com>wrote:

Flame of the West
David Sulger wrote:

David Sulger
Not exactly. Jehovah's Witnesses are a result of American religious freedom. Over the last century, a lot of ultra-conservative evangelical Christian groups have popped up all over the country in the wake of various religious revivals. The Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the more well-known sects, probably because of their damn annoying proselytization practices.

Flame of the West
I heard that they believe that only 144,000 people would be saved. Of course, there are more JW's than that...

AC
No, they believe that only 144000 will go to heaven. The rest will live forever on earth. Therein lies the danger of literal translations of Revelations.

James Bell
How's that dangerous?

AC
Have you met any JWs. A large part of my family are JWs, and believe me, literal translations of Revelations are dangerous.

James Bell
I don't believe literal translations are any more dangerous than religious intolerance. Your post has made that much crystal clear to me.

AC
Has made what crystal clear to you? Either I'm quite dense, or I haven't seen your point yet. Where have I displayed religious intolerance. The fact that, as far as one religious group goes, I know whence hardly defines me as intolerant.

I am quite sure that there are very dangerous interpretations of the Bible, otherwise Waco, Texas would have been a pleasant picnic between a religious group and some FBI sharpshooters.