Jump to content
The World News Media

Not in my Congregation! - We are not called Pastors anyhow! - Be on the Watch! ~?? ?


Bible Speaks

Recommended Posts


  • Views 1.1k
  • Replies 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

True. The last person at the Watch Tower Headquarters who was called Pastor, evidently never owned a car. The newspaper article starts out: Pastor Russell of the Peoples Pulpit Association today decla

...but does your car have lifting hooks on the roof so when you stop for a break at McDonald's for a hamburger, you can have a helicopter take you back to the Territory?

Posted Images

  • Member

WOW....  nice  big  'Ami - Cars' !!   Btw. -  some  of  our  Brothers  and  Sisters  also  driving  big  cars  and  their  bigger  kids  driving  their  own  cars !  Thats  so  in  many  congregations  here...   Only  in  poor  countries its  different.   But  also  in  Africa,  many  Brothers  driving  big  cars  I  saw.  So  I  not  really  understand  this  post ! :o9_9:D   Our  Pastors  driving  smaller  cars,  bec. not  earning  so  much  money,  thats  it :(  haha....

A  nice  car  TOM,    WOW...   I  like  it !   Bigger  cars  very  cosy !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 minutes ago, Queen Esther said:

So  I  not  really  understand  this  post ! :o9_9:D   Our  Pastors  driving  smaller  cars,  bec. not  earning  so  much  money,  thats  it :(  haha..

The first photo is of a prosperity gospel church - there are many of them here - whereby the preacher and his family always make out financially very well indeed, thank you, though the flock is typically quite modest, or even poor. BibleSpeaks may have a specific church in mind, but I do not know that.

The next photo is from Ann being a smart-aleck. Judge Rutherford drove a nice car, too, she points out.

The next post is from BibleSpeaks, essentially saying: "OH YEAH?! Well, our guy deserved it because he was our guy!"

Then JWI adds some explanatory details and it is a wonder he does not go on for pages. 

Then follows a photo of me in a 56 Cadillac that is not mine. It belongs to a local businessman. He saw me looking it over. We got to chatting and he offered to take a picture of me in it. He bought the Cadillac from some mogul in Hollywood. It has apparently been in some movies but, for some reason, everyone is tight lipped about just which ones. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

All  okay,  yes !   I  understand.....    Its  around  all  countries  little  different,  seems so.  Big  cars,  houses  etc.  is  not  all  -  in  poorer  countries  the  people  often  more  happy,  also  JW !   Importend  are other  things...  LOVE,  PEACE  a  bed,  clothes,  bread  and  water :)  All  others  is  little  LUXURY,  but  nice :x:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
16 minutes ago, Queen Esther said:

in  poorer  countries  the  people  often  more  happy,  also  JW !   Importend  are other  things...  LOVE,  PEACE  a  bed,  clothes,  bread  and  water :)  All  others  is  little  LUXURY,  but  nice :x:D

Many years ago a brother from an African branch spoke here. He was amazed at the material wealth. He went on and on about how brothers here even have "washing-up machines." And: "Not only do you have cars here but you have garages in which to put the cars. In Africa, four families would live in that garage!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
40 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Then JWI adds some explanatory details and it is a wonder he does not go on for pages. 

There is still time!

I thought of the prosperity gospel churches too, and large "personality" mega-churches that highlight their evangelists and "faith healers" on television along with the audiences. However, I suspect that the person who made the original meme was aiming more at the hypocrisy inherent even in more typical church situations where the pastor is a couple of tax brackets higher than the congregation. Another form of clergy/laity distinction. It must seem exacerbated in those poorer neighborhoods with a church, two pawn shops and two liquor stores on every block. The churches in such neighborhoods often grow even with all the block-by-block competition, and the pastors therefore do well.

But I also noticed that Bible Speaks wanted to make it clear that this kind of thing does not happen in her congregation. But can it? She adds "Be on the watch" as if there might be some danger even among our own. But she also added "We are not called Pastors anyhow." This means, evidently, that the idea doesn't apply to us after all.

I take it for granted that most people here know that this is not really a problem among JWs. So is it something to watch out for? Ann shows that it has happened before. Rutherford kept a few houses for his personal use in several places around the world. He had more than one of these expensive cars, simultaneously during the great depression. His own "prosperity" gospel took advantage of the economic desires of his audience, but correctly turned them toward a more spiritual perspective. He had books and booklets and talks called Riches, Prosperity, and Prohibition is from the Devil? Oh wait, that last one didn't turn toward spirituality in the same was as the others, it just went ahead and "proved" that prohibition really was from the Devil. But money was clearly not the primary thing for either Russell or Rutherford. Both of them believed for much of their lives that the end was coming in a matter of years or often, even just a few months. Russell spent the Society's funds like crazy right up until October 1914. No reason to have anything left over. Rutherford didn't turn down the amenities, but he was clearly not driven by money, either.

It's always good to look at the possibilities even if we are really nothing like most of these churches that rake in millions for a feel-good and/or prosperity message that never seems to pan out for the average member. I mentioned the 125-foot yacht for the same reason that Ann mentioned the car. It's a bit thought-provoking about how easy it is to attach ourselves to material things without noticing the effect on onlookers. Watches, jewelry, vacations, chandeliers, cruises, yachts, and such can look like a showy display of one's means, even if that's not what one means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

One of our elders bought a new Toyota SUV and it has all the doo-dads. Certain brothers are going gaga over it and all the things it can do.  Now - this is not me. I say: "look for a steering wheel and brakes. Whatever else it does nor does not have: get used to it."

So the brothers are slobbering over Frank's SUV and I climb aboard one Saturday morning and pretend to be one of them. "Frankie, does this car have a RADIO?" I ask, as though awestruck. 

But Frankie is cool and he plays along: "Naw, it doesn't have one of those."

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,410

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.