"Babies are enemies of God" Stephen Lett.

Jim

Well-known member
JW leader says babies are "enemies of God". Truly a nutcase. Jesus loved little children. He didn't call them "enemies of God". Even the imperfect Abraham was referred to as a "friend of God". Maybe he is referring to the sexually abused children that when they get older go to the authorities. No one has defamed God's name more than those that presumptuously took it for themselves.
 

Ms_ladyblue

Well-known member
JW leader says babies are "enemies of God". Truly a nutcase. Jesus loved little children. He didn't call them "enemies of God". Even the imperfect Abraham was referred to as a "friend of God". Maybe he is referring to the sexually abused children that when they get older go to the authorities. No one has defamed God's name more than those that presumptuously took it for themselves.
VERY DISTURBING!
 

Soul Sage

Well-known member
Do tell, please. I can't bear to watch him again.
Full context of his quote without the deceptive edit.
"look at that little angel but more accurate would be to say look at that little enemy of God, now of course we love that little baby and it's not not hopeless because our loving creator has made reconciliation with him with everyone."
 
  • Like
Reactions: jay

Nomex

Well-known member
after when he clarifies himself.
You know what that's called? Gaslighting. You know why he "clarified himself?" Becasue he knows all too well, how horrible what he said actually is. So he spins it, to try to make himself not sound like the demon, that posses and controls him.
now of course we love that little baby and it's not not hopeless
Which is exactly what these people have mastered to know exactly how to manipulate and control their slaves.

I know Steven Lett. He served as C.O. in my Hall back in the 80's, I also know how I'm the only one in my family who doesn't worship Stephen Lett.

All I can say is go watch a video of that little demon Adam Sciff, then watch Stephen Lett, and tell me the same demon does not control them both! Watch the eyes.
 

Ms_ladyblue

Well-known member
Full context of his quote without the deceptive edit.
"look at that little angel but more accurate would be to say look at that little enemy of God, now of course we love that little baby and it's not not hopeless because our loving creator has made reconciliation with him with everyone."
Ok, I understand what you’re saying but think about this…why did he have to make such a strong negative point like that to begin with? I’m sure most won’t appreciate his unloving statement even though he follows it up by saying something so sweet and positive.

After all, doesn’t God’s word say at 1 Corinthians 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise your children would be unclean, BUT NOW THEY ARE HOLY.”
If those children are holy they can’t be “little enemies.”

God’s word takes precedence over Lett’s words.
 
Last edited:

TheJehuChariot

Well-known member
What GB Lett said regarding little babies was what you would call an "asinine" thing to say. Defined as foolish, unintelligent, silly, stupid. In other words, it was a spiritually immature and needless thing to say that is at the very least, not kind, considerate or discreet. IF, he wanted to highlight how all humans are born into Adamic sin, and that from birth, right out of the gate, one is doomed to death without God's grace and Christ ransom and that the fleshly struggle immediately begins the sojourn of imperfect life in hopes to be united with God via imitation of His holiness, that is one way of saying it. But his tongue n cheek way of saying "enemies of God", to me just smacks of insensitivity, self seeking, lacking "insight" and just plain goofy.
 

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
You missed out on the important sentence he says after when he clarifies himself.
One should not make a statement such as Lett did that needed clarification. He made the statement for impact and to draw attention to himself of saying something shocking. It is a tactical manner of speaking to gain attention of the audience, but to make such a statement it should not be said as truth and then explained unless the speaker is adept and skilled in narrative (and which it is safe say that Lett is not) and can put the point into context. As it was, this man set a pattern of thought, and critically, a viewpoint that is both demeaning and dangerous to parent and child alike. It was a completely inappropriate and immature, dangerous comment and demonstrated a very superficial insight into cognitive development. No amount of ’explanation’ can excuse such a statement. Splane’s talk of ‘extended generations’ is another example that demonstrates the level of incredulity in the thinking of these men. In both cases, it has to be held in the mind that the listeners are ‘asleep’ spiritually. They take these throwaway statements as truth and that is the very reason it was said in the first place. If Lett was as wise as he thinks he is, he would never have said it.
 

Sandman

Member
Ok, I understand what you’re saying but think about this…why did he have to make such a strong negative point like that to begin with? I’m sure most won’t appreciate his unloving statement even though he follows it up by saying something so sweet and positive.

After all, doesn’t God’s word say at 1 Corinthians 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise your children would be unclean, BUT NOW THEY ARE HOLY.”
If those children are holy they can’t be “little enemies.”

God’s word takes precedence over Lett’s words.
Very good and insightful scripture
 

Nomex

Well-known member
I’m sure most won’t appreciate his unloving statement even though he follows it up by saying something so sweet and positive.
This reminds me of what we call a "backhanded compliment." And the more I make the comparison between what Lett did and what is a "backhanded compliment". I'll define it in my own way, and then I'll quote the way it is defined from a source. The expression "back handed compliment", refers to someone including an insult with a compliment. It's a way of hiding your real feelings because you know they are unjustified, by acknowledging a person's good deed, but including the thing you didn'6t like about what they did. I think of it like this, and perhaps this is the origin of the expression, "back handed" it's a slap with the back of your hand, but with a nice word of the other side of that slap. As the dictionary defines it, "An insult disguised as a compliment."

But Lett being the buffoon that he is, can't even get the "back handed compliment" right. It comes across 100% as an insult to anyone who is not an apologist for these clowns. A skillful ass like myself could have delivered that with so much more skill and charisma you might not have been able to identify it as the true assness that it really is. Except there's one problem. It's not possible to say what he said, without sounding like a complete jackass, and if you are defending him you are not being honest with yourself!

Here I'll demonstrate a much better way of making an ass out of yourself.....pretend I'm Stephen Lett, "Oh what a cute baby, you could even say what a little angel, except of course unless that little angel repents and becomes one of Jehovah's Witnesses it will burn in hell forever, er, ah, ah, ah I mean die at Armageddon." BIG SMILE! (Oh I'm so clever. Although I wish I hadn't said the burn in hell part out loud. I hope no one realizes I hate children, that would not be a good look, although, I'm sure we'll think of something if they do. APOSTATES! That always seems to do the trick, what suckers.) Big smile, and bigger raised eyebrows.
 

noname

Well-known member
JW leader says babies are "enemies of God". Truly a nutcase. Jesus loved little children. He didn't call them "enemies of God". Even the imperfect Abraham was referred to as a "friend of God". Maybe he is referring to the sexually abused children that when they get older go to the authorities. No one has defamed God's name more than those that presumptuously took it for themselves.
Along with that, the problem with the statement is not even that it's shocking, it's that the statement is blatantly false. James told us you have to make yourself an enemy of God by becoming friends with the world.
 

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
Ok, I understand what you’re saying but think about this…why did he have to make such a strong negative point like that to begin with? I’m sure most won’t appreciate his unloving statement even though he follows it up by saying something so sweet and positive.

After all, doesn’t God’s word say at 1 Corinthians 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise your children would be unclean, BUT NOW THEY ARE HOLY.”
If those children are holy they can’t be “little enemies.”

God’s word takes precedence over Lett’s words.
Very true and a good scriptural thought. Thanks.
 

Ms_ladyblue

Well-known member
Along with that, the problem with the statement is not even that it's shocking, it's that the statement is blatantly false. James told us you have to make yourself an enemy of God by becoming friends with the world.
That’s exactly what I said. We are not born enemies therefore how can babies be “little enemies of God” ???

Lett is a fool and a liar! I wonder if any of the others (those having parts on the program) noticed? 🤔
 

noname

Well-known member
That’s exactly what I said. We are not born enemies therefore how can babies be “little enemies of God” ???

Lett is a fool and a liar! I wonder if any of the others (those having parts on the program) noticed? 🤔
A child abuser of whatever sort now has a video of a leader explaining why they deserve to be abused.
 
Top