What does not passing the collection plate really mean anyway?

[Witness]

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What? Is he trying to pretend God needs it? Why does God need our money

In your use of sarcasm, you actually speak truth.

“God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.  Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.”  Acts 17:24,25

 

Weigh these scriptures against the broadcast which calls an assembly hall, “Jehovah’s house”.   Blasphemy. 

[JW Insider]

17 hours ago, Anna said:

What about the churches of Christendom? Were they also leased?

Like this one:

That's the Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral, of course, which is also the primary picture under the Wikipedia article: "History of the Catholic Church in Mexico." The relationship of the Catholic Church has gone through strained periods in Mexico (also in Spain, of course where some parallels occurred.) There were many years when the Catholic Church could not own property, but they had this idea that their "civic associations" such as Catholic schools could be owned by the Church. (I have read that this was one of the ways they fought legally for privileged exceptions.) Even this caused problems. But it seems a reasonable guess that the Watch Tower got the idea from the Catholic Church that declaring yourself a civic association instead of a religion was a good way to be able to own property, as I think Catholics had done with their schools. The Wikipedia article starts out as follows:

• The history of the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico dates from the period of the Spanish conquest (1519–21) and has continued as an institution in Mexico into the twenty-first century. Catholicism is one of the two major legacies from the Spanish colonial era, the other being Spanish as the nation's language. The Catholic Church was a privileged institution until the mid nineteenth century. It was the sole permissible Church in the colonial era and into the early Mexican Republic, following independence in 1821. At some point in the twentieth century, Eastern Catholic jurisdictions were established in Mexico,^{[citation needed]} but Roman Catholicism remains the largest religious group.
• In the mid-nineteenth century the liberal La Reforma brought major changes in church-state relations. The Mexican state challenged the Catholic Church's role in education in Mexico, property ownership, birth, marriage, and death records, in anticlerical laws. Many of these were incorporated into the Constitution of 1857, restricting the Church's corporate ownership of property and other limitations. President Porfirio Díaz (1876–1911) pursued a policy of conciliation with the Catholic Church, keeping the liberal anticlerical articles of the constitution in force, but in practice allowing greater freedom of action for the Catholic Church.^[1] With Díaz's ouster in 1911 and the decade-long conflict of the Mexican Revolution, the victorious Constitutionalist faction led by Venustiano Carranza wrote the new Constitution of 1917 that strengthened the anticlerical measures in the liberal Constitution of 1857.
• With the presidency of Northern, anticlerical, revolutionary general Plutarco Elías Calles (1924–28), the State's enforcement of the anticlerical articles of Constitution of 1917 provoked a major crisis in Mexico with violence in a number of regions of Mexico. The Cristero Rebellion (1926–29) was resolved, with the aid of diplomacy of the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, ending the violence, but the anticlerical articles of the constitution remained. President Manuel Avila Camacho (1940–1946) came to office declaring "I am a [Catholic] believer," (soy creyente) and Church-State relations improved though without constitutional changes.
• A major change came in 1992, with the presidency of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988–1994). In a sweeping program of reform to "modernize Mexico" that he outlined in his 1988 inaugural address, his government pushed through revisions in the Mexican Constitution, explicitly including a new legal framework that restored the Catholic Church's juridical personality.^{[2][3][4][5][6]} The majority of Mexicans in the twenty-first century identify themselves as being Catholic, but the growth of other religious groups such as Protestant evangelicals, Mormons, as well secularism is consistent with trends elsewhere in Latin America. The 1992 federal Act on Religious Associations and Public Worship (Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público), known in English as the Religious Associations Act or (RAA), has affected all religious groups in Mexico.^[7]

[TrueTomHarley]

15 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Is this the head start to tithing? Seems so

 

14 hours ago, Witness said:

Watchtower is determined to get blood out of a turnip.

Shiwiii delivers his coup de grace (this time for sure!) and Witness immediately high-fives him! They are both so excited!

Both are either too stupid, too deceitful, or too blinded by hate to notice that the Watchtower's letter is exactly based on the scripture that is quoted in the same paragraph. In fact, the two are intertwined, so that they are seemingly impossible to separate save for someone with an 10-foot ax to grind with which to separate the bone from the marrow of those they cannot tolerate. Is it too harsh to say we are dealing with a couple of losers?

In fact, the Watchtower shows more consideration than Paul. Paul simply says 'I'm coming for it - have it ready!' without any detail as to what he will use it for. Why isn't there an account to keep him honest - as has been demanded repeatedly elsewhere?! The Watchtower simply says we can be instructed by Paul's letter - it doesn't twist the arm as he does - and, unlike Paul,  it gives the reason for monies needed: for rent and maintenance. 

Even @Witness, who knows the Bible better than anyone in the whole wide world, especially the Governing Body, and who cannot pour herself a bowl of Cheerios without citing five scriptures to justify it, misses this most obvious point in the world - collections in a congregation have full scriptural backing. 

Once again,we go back to the point already stated:  nobody is less intrusive about money matters than are Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[Shiwiii]

48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Shiwiii delivers his coup de grace (this time for sure!) and Witness immediately high-fives him! They are both so excited!

Both are either too stupid, too deceitful, or too blinded by hate to notice

Why are you sooo bitter? You resort to personal attacks because you cannot refute the facts? The fact is, that the wt and the gb are "passing the plate", but you close your eyes and say"lalalalallalalal I can't hear you" They are modeling after those in which they denounce, but you can't accept that. 

48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Is it too harsh to say we are dealing with a couple of losers?

again, really? 

49 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

n fact, the Watchtower shows more consideration than Paul. Paul simply says 'I'm coming for it - have it ready!' without any detail as to what he will use it for. Why isn't there an account to keep him honest - as has been demanded repeatedly elsewhere?! The Watchtower simply says we can be instructed by Paul's letter - it doesn't twist the arm as he does - and, unlike Paul,  it gives the reason for monies needed: for rent and maintenance. 

The difference you fail to see here is Paul was inspired, the wt and gb are not................

 

49 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Even @Witness, who knows the Bible better than anyone in the whole wide world, especially the Governing Body, and who cannot pour herself a bowl of Cheerios without citing five scriptures to justify it,

again with the personal attacks

 

50 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Once again,we go back to the point already stated:  nobody is less intrusive about money matters than are Jehovah's Witnesses.

you've been proven wrong on this but refuse to accept it. 

 

 

You know if you take a step back and look, you'll see that your personal attacks only expose your inability to refute the facts presented to you. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

47 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

You know if you take a step back and look, you'll see that your personal attacks only expose your inability to refute the facts presented to you. 

Reading comprehension is NOT one of TTH's strong points.

They say "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink".

The facts speak for themselves.

[TrueTomHarley]

52 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

again with the personal attacks

Sometimes personal attacks, if they are accompanied by the reasons for it, are exactly the way to go.

Even raising a strawman is at times appropriate, for 'God wants men of all sorts to be saved' - even strawmen.

Shiwiii again: "Why are you sooo bitter?"

'Bitterness' is in the eye of the beholder. I would say that my goal here, and that of many others, is to defend certain dedicated ones from relentless and often infantile attacks.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

It's a lot EASIER to defend actual TRUTH .... wherever it is found.

[Witness]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Even @Witness, who knows the Bible better than anyone in the whole wide world, especially the Governing Body, and who cannot pour herself a bowl of Cheerios without citing five scriptures to justify it, misses this most obvious point in the world - collections in a congregation have full scriptural backing. 

Since you mention it, I don’t start my morning with Cheerios, but with God’s Word.  Seriously. 

“Ho! Everyone who thirsts,
Come to the waters;
And you who have no money,
Come, buy and eat.
Yes, come, buy wine and milk
Without money and without price.
 Why do you spend money for what is not bread,
And your wages for what does not satisfy?
Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,
And let your soul delight itself in abundance.”  Isa 55:1,2

 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.”  John 6:35

He also said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”  Luke 12:1 

With “leaven”, the GB is telling you that the organization’s need for money comes directly from scripture. 

"Then they understood that he had not told them to beware of the leaven in bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Matt 16:12

 

I am only beginning to know the Bible, better than I had in the past.    Rev 3:20; 19:9

 

[TrueTomHarley]

6 minutes ago, Witness said:

Since you mention it, I don’t start my morning with Cheerios, but with God’s Word

This recalls an experience 35 years ago when I studied the Bible with a much older Czeckoslovakian woman, who - in hindsight - must have regarded me as a grandson.

One week I could not make it and asked a similarly aged woman, who also professed to be of the annointed, to cover for me. It did not go over well. My student started the study session by offering refreshments - as she always did with me and I always accepted. "My food is to do the will of him who sent me," my sub said, turning down the offer.

'It is theater!' my student sputtered on during the next week's session - whatever the pious sentiments expressed were completely lost on her. 'People are human. They need to eat.'

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

the GB is telling you that the organization’s need for money comes directly from scripture. 

The "need for money" makes common sense. It made common sense to Paul, and it makes common sense to people who have...well ummm....common sense, and want to eat and pay the bills. I have no idea how you think things are paid for. Long gone are the days where I gave you flour in exchange for a chicken....

[Anna]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Wikipedia article:

Thank you! Duh, why didn't I just think of doing that! I know, I must have thought you needed some work to do

[Witness]

27 minutes ago, Anna said:

The "need for money" makes common sense. It made common sense to Paul, and it makes common sense to people who have...well ummm....common sense, and want to eat and pay the bills. I have no idea how you think things are paid for. Long gone are the days where I gave you flower in exchange for a chicken....

Russell said, Beware of "organization." It is wholly unnecessary. The Bible rules will be the only rules you will need. Do not seek to bind others' consciences, and do not permit others to bind yours."   Wt. 9/15/1895 pg 216

Rutherford:  “Religion is a snare and a racket”  1939

Wt 1953 3/1  p. 143 “Ask yourself now, Did Christ Jesus, who set our example and told us to follow his example to gain life, join any church organization in his day? No, God does not require us to do that; but he requires us to worship him... We have the Bible to show us the right way. Certainly it is not necessary for a person to become a member of a church to gain everlasting life."

"Jehovah’s visible organization can use you, but can get along without you too. But you cannot get along without it. Fruitless ones are eventually pruned off and never missed as new ones are grafted in. Pruned-off branches soon wither and die, being cut off from the circulating, life-giving sap." Watchtower 1950 Jan 15 p.26

"Come to Jehovah's organization for salvation" - Watchtower 1981 Nov 15 p.212

WHO IS RIGHT? WHICH WATCHTOWER LEADER IS SHOWING COMMON SENSE?

Beasts need to eat; symbolic “Beasts” suck the life blood out of those who follow their hypocritical teachings.  Rev chapter 13.