John Cedars on BBC

Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Marina
Posts: 2507
Joined: 6 years ago

John Cedars on BBC

#1 Post by Marina » 1 month ago

Marina

Proselytiser of Jah
Posts: 180
Joined: 1 month ago
Contact:

Re: John Cedars on BBC

#2 Post by Proselytiser of Jah » 1 month ago

It's a shame he's such a militant antichrist & athiest, because he's done some of the best work on exposing the WT's ways. I'm always very wary of him these days ever since I caught him in telling half truths about the Bible to persuade people to athiesm. I checked out his claims about the Bible carefully and ended up debunking them with research on the matter. So I tend to avoid his content these days.

It's why I tend to prefer Eric's channel, as he does good content exposing the org, without trying to harm people's faith.


On the bright side, these things coming to light in the media is a good thing. It's no longer just the Catholics, but all manner of Babylonian religions now. It would not surprise me if this was all part of the on going maneuver which will lead the nations to declare war on the Harlot and "eat her".
"The fruitage of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..." Galatians 5:22-23

Orchid61
Posts: 654
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: John Cedars on BBC

#3 Post by Orchid61 » 1 month ago

As watching John Cedars at the BBC,

Barbara Anderson and her husband came to mind.

A brave couple 👍

I hope they love their King Jesus and his and our Father still very much 🥰

Love Maria 🌷

apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3394
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: John Cedars on BBC

#4 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 1 month ago

I guess this would technically count as "JW News" since Lloyd has managed to gain enough attention to have BBC and other media outlets entertain his perspective. His involvements with IICSA, the Leah Remini show, etc, have obviously been a boost, and so in a general sense he's worked for this attention and probably deserves it.

A few years ago this would have gone to the "Controversial" discussion group - not because of the subject matter, but on the question of to whom we give a platform.

I find it curious that so many intricate conspiracy theories have been promoted, with so much apparent insider knowledge, and yet something that's in plain sight gets a full pass.

What I mean by this is that Lloyd has stated his agenda very openly. He currently makes his living in this niche of anti-JW activism, but it's also a means to an end, since he is super-involved in the atheist community in general and would strongly prefer that all of his audience that he is leading out of the org would become "Atheist" not "Christian".

He's a smart guy and I think he makes his points well. But that's not the issue. I agree with PoJ that he doesn't always stick to facts. There doesn't seem to be any refrain from being disingenuous when it suits his overall message.

So I find myself scratching my head when people with Christian goals might slam some medical choice because there is apparently a hidden agenda behind it, and yet appear readily willing to open the door to the hard-line atheist community which has a very clear and public agenda.

It's not a criticism Marina. It's just something I'd like to understand better.

In the video Lloyd claims a possible "deference to religion" by the government, and he's probably right. But he's clearly stating that in a pejorative way, which many of his viewers will accept without even thinking of the consequences..

With apologies to Niemöller, I am going to slightly reword his well known quote:

First they came for the socialists, and I spoke out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I spoke out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I spoke out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Apollos

P.S. If a person chooses to listen to ex-JW activists, then it's beneficial to know whether they make their living from it or have some other motivation. It doesn't mean that what they say is wrong, but once activists hang their hats on that means of income, it must become virtually impossible to offer impartial information (as if it's not hard enough already).

Jeremiah
Posts: 31
Joined: 2 years ago

Re: John Cedars on BBC

#5 Post by Jeremiah » 1 month ago

My love and greetings to all.

An excellent comment Apollos.

I scratch my head every day! The reception this chap gets is one cause, and so many things in general

What then is an apostate and how are we with christian goals supposed to receive them?

I have been trying to let it go. Really is any of it our issue? That is outside of our own personal efforts to reach our christian goal. Here we are with a fractional timespan available to us in a universe of such expanse in time and space and we want to change the world?

Mini rant over

Jeremiah

Marina
Posts: 2507
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: John Cedars on BBC

#6 Post by Marina » 1 month ago

Hi Apollos - no I don't listen to John Cedars - the video was sent to me and given the child abuse issues I thought others here would be curious. I think I posted another John Cedars when he interviewed our ex Cobe. Which makes me wonder if our ex Cobe had anything to do with him getting on the BBC.

Our ex Cobe used to do the contracts at the BBC. That was before he ran off with the wives of other men. No it wasn't - he'd done it before, got himself df'd, repented, returned, remarried, climbed to Cobe level and did it all over again (we mushrooms only found out AFTER it had all happened). Then he (Steve Harvey) appeared on John Cedars sort of saying 'sorry.' Steve's brother put money towards John Cedars channel.

I think Steve's best mate (I have no idea whether he still speaks to him or not) is very supportive of the CO who was behind the disfellowshipping of a sister who just questioned the child abuse issues with the elders. See my video 'The Disfellowshipping of Faithful Christine.'

Re medical choices - people will make their own decisions, just as they do with religion. But religion makes a lot of money and so does big pharma, it is not all altruism. At one time we might have thought the views in WT was for the benefit of all until we woke up and found it was just advertising material.

Ok John Cedars is an atheist. Without WT could he make a living? Without WT would he have lost his faith? Or is he controlled opposition? I don't know - I just put up the video because I thought it would be of interest re the child abuse issues. Also who is to say he wont regain his faith? Even the Men of Nineveh repented.

(Matthew 12:41) . . .Men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it; because they repented at what Jonah preached, but, look! something more than Jonah is here.

And although I am disgusted at what Steve Harvey did, I do wonder whether at he would at least have agreed that 1914 was wrong and that the 3rd year of Jehoiakim's rulership really was the 3rd year of Jehoiakim's rulership. One Cobe that took over from him threw me out, the other could not listen to the arithmetic because 3 being 3 was a bit too controversial for him. And we reckon the Secretary had to pretend to be a hairdresser writing to me to say that he couldn't possibly look at Dan 1:1 and Dan 2:1 with me and discuss the numbers 3 and 11 and 2 and 20.
Marina

Orchid61
Posts: 654
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: John Cedars on BBC

#7 Post by Orchid61 » 1 month ago

Ok John Cedars is an atheist.
But he is promoting it in an evangelistic way.


He was the first my son in law mentioned after he and my daughter told me they are away from the Watchtower, I said good for you, and then my son in law said I am an atheist now.

Well to whom do we go, asked Peter. We have to go to Jesus and NOT to John Cedars.

I sure hope they all will repent Marina, its a subject in my prayer everyday.

Love Maria 🌷

User avatar
FriendlyDoggo
Posts: 116
Joined: 1 month ago

Re: John Cedars on BBC

#8 Post by FriendlyDoggo » 1 month ago

I left the "truth" because of him (and JW Facts) his videos were pretty good because he doesn't try to scare you like most exJWs.

This man suffered a lot in the hands of this cult, I hope God forgive him.

Matthew 5:44
My english isn't very good, sorry any inconvenience.

User avatar
Bruno
Posts: 2399
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: John Cedars on BBC

#9 Post by Bruno » 1 month ago

FriendlyDoggo wrote:
1 month ago
I left the "truth" because of him (and JW Facts) his videos were pretty good because he doesn't try to scare you like most exJWs.

This man suffered a lot in the hands of this cult, I hope God forgive him.

Matthew 5:44
It would be interesting to know just how many people left as a result of Cedars influence. I didn't know he was atheist, I thought he was agnostic. I think most people who leave the jw religion are bound to end up either atheist or agnostic regardless of anything negative Cedars has to say about God.
Unfortunately, the GB has been more concerned about building faith in them as an organisation rather than building belief in God.
Karl

apollos0fAlexandria
Posts: 3394
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: John Cedars on BBC

#10 Post by apollos0fAlexandria » 1 month ago

Bruno wrote:
1 month ago
I didn't know he was atheist, I thought he was agnostic.
I'm pretty sure he says he's an atheist, but I've noticed that the words are a little more confused these days.

Even Dawkins & co take the stance that they cannot PROVE that a God doesn't exist. They've taken a very careful line, which is also more logical and powerful than "old atheism" if I can call it that.

Their reasoning is that a theist BELIEVES a God exists, so the inverse of that (according to them) is a-theism meaning that there is insufficient evidence to prove a God exists and therefore the default position would be NOT to accept it until their evidential demand is satisfied. It's a pretty smart move, because it's much easier to move someone to that position than it is to actually prove that God exists or does not exist.

So what one might have previously called agnostic, is now really what most atheists hold to as far as I can see.

And I think that's where Lloyd and co DO have a strong influence on the outcome for people leaving. Because if you're in a hurry to leave the org, this "holding pattern" of - maybe I'll believe when there is more evidential support from the scientific community and in the meantime I'll keep an "open mind" - is very appealing. To be clear I'm not criticizing the scientific method in general (as you well know). But people are being persuaded IMO to use the wrong tool for the job. As Christians we will never be able to prove anything to a group that stands by these criteria, even when Jesus comes again.

Once people have been funneled into that camp it becomes very difficult to reason for God's existence, because now they have a shiny new set of standards that they have been led to believe must be met.

Also, they will see that the scary stories that they been told about atheists are not generally true. Their atheism doesn't automatically drive them to a selfish mode of life. That was just a fallacy that sounded appealing to the herd. If you've been previously convinced that non-belief in God leads to XYZ outcome for the inner person, and you observe it not to be the case, then using lack of faith as a boogy-man no longer works. Which just demonstrates it should never have been used that way to begin with.

The big picture of the ultimate outcome is lost so easily, and the incentive to discover it is made to appear foolish. (1 Cor 3:19)
Bruno wrote:
1 month ago
I think most people who leave the jw religion are bound to end up either atheist or agnostic regardless of anything negative Cedars has to say about God.
Maybe. But I will say that, with one or two exceptions, every person that I personally know who has separated from JW.org has maintained some form of Christian belief. So I don't think it's necessary to assume a certain inevitability around this.
Bruno wrote:
1 month ago
Unfortunately, the GB has been more concerned about building faith in them as an organisation rather than building belief in God.
Agreed. And that's what makes their followers far more vulnerable to the logic presented by the atheist community. Just having an awareness of that vulnerability when we post is I guess all I would hope for.

For someone who doesn't perceive the same danger, I have no desire to quash their right to share whatever they please. But if you look at our original "Forum Rules" above (which haven't changed since the site began), there are only 3 scriptural principles - the first one of which is Matt 18:6.

Nice to chat Bruno.

Apollos

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests