They're better as a group, than they are individually - (observations from the outside)

[xero]

7 hours ago, Anna said:

It is a difficult doctrine for me to accept, yes, however, I am not saying it can't be true. The organization is obviously convinced it is true. If one day there is sufficient evidence for them to stop being so dogmatic about it, they may change their opinion. They have done it before with other things. If that happens, then it won't change my opinion about Jws. It will remain the same as it is today because I do not hang my faith on the 1914 doctrine.

It's not like JW's are the only ones. SDA (Seventh Day Adventists) are equally punctillious, but about 1844 and they use Daniel and some other interesting ways of parsing scripture. I don't fault people for keeping alert. I am trying to process all of this over again because some interpretations don't seem so solid. Of course the people in the 1st century likewise had a lot of speculations and the like, but that didn't invalidate their basic claims. So the deal for me is:

1. It has to be an organization

2. It can't support the trinity, hellfire, eternal torment or the like

3. It can't blow off biblical morality

Problems w/SDA's is that they used to be antitrinitarian, but they caved. Of course they have other problems, like the sabbath (but the point is that they make a point of taking a stand on something).

I remember asking someone (as an atheist) who was religious if he thought his religion was the truth and he said no.

I had to laugh at the idiocy.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

17 hours ago, Anna said:

By being unreasonable, these oposers lose credit. She mentions wrong expectations as something horribly sinful, and calls it false prophesying. And yet all the ones that have been hurt by it are those who have put more faith in men than in God.

YOUR GB CALL THEMSELVES THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE. 

Your GB have stated that "GOD AND CHRIST TRUST US THEREFORE ALL JWs SHOULD TRUST US"

ON BOTH COUNTS YOUR GB HAVE NO PROOF OF WHAT THEY SAY.

Now tell me who's fault it is that congregants have put their trust in MEN. 

YOUR GB DEMAND IT. 

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

5 hours ago, Anna said:

It is a difficult doctrine for me to accept, yes, however, I am not saying it can't be true.

 

15 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

And yet all the ones that have been hurt by it are those who have put more faith in men than in God.

Both these statements were made by Anna. the second one was one that i previously quoted.

My point being that if as Anna says " It is a difficult doctrine for me (her) to accept, then it would appear she HAS put more faith in men than in God.

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

49 minutes ago, xero said:

So the deal for me is:

1. It has to be an organization

2. It can't support the trinity, hellfire, eternal torment or the like

3. It can't blow off biblical morality

What exactly does this last item mean ?  It's not really good English.  But the JW org has been proven to be immoral. CSA and adultery are ripe and ongoing in the JW Org. 

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, Kick_Faceinator said:

Unfortunately, the poor guy fell into the same trap many other men have fallen victim of in proclaiming Christ’s presence began before the “man of lawlessness” has been revealed.

Perhaps Anna and other JW members believe how apostasy in form of "man of lawlessness" already came in 1st Christian congregation and then continued with big appearance of Roman State Religion aka false Christianity that exist until today. In such logic (WTJWorg teaching i guess) it looked as good conclusion for Russell and his heirs (Rutherford and JW's with him later) how "presence" of Jesus came somehow in the same time with "presence" of Russell. "First Jesus' presence" in 1874 with "end" in 1914 (WTS established in 1879). Later they moved this date, and the year 1914 came to be start point for "invisible presence", again.

In such WTJWorg "scenario" it is not possible, or needed to happen again, for any new occurrence with some extra "man of lawlessness" in "only true religion" aka WTJWorg. But such eschatology, eschatological understanding, removes the caution of believers, who may be manipulated by their religious leaders. As it seems to me, the "man of lawlessness" has existed constantly, throughout the period since the 1st Congregation was established till today.

"The Strong Cable of Chronology", Watch Tower, July 15, 1922, page 217, "The chronology of present truth is, to begin with, a string of dates... Thus far it is a chain, and no stronger than its weakest link. There exist, however, well established relationships among the dates of present-truth chronology. These internal connections of the dates impart a much greater strength than can be found in other [secular, archeological] chronologies. Some of them are of so remarkable a character as clearly to indicate that this chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct.

he Watchtower, March 1, 1922, page 73, "The indisputable facts, therefore, show that the 'time of the end' began in 1799; that the Lord's second presence began in 1874."

[TrueTomHarley]

21 hours ago, Kick_Faceinator said:

It’s not just the Bible students, the witnesses keep repeating the same exact message.

Whenever someone posts covers like this, particularly when accompanied by remarks on how the WT is scaring children, I refer to a certain Newsweek cover a few years back. Over stark background, it listed 4 or 5 horrendous calamities that had visited over the past week, then dropped down to its subheading, “What the #*@! Is next?”

Total despair on the cover of a national newsweekly. But had they no reassuring words for the children? Ah—yes, they said: “What the #*@! Is next?” The generation that has failed its young in so many things now even fails them in reassuring rhetoric. “What the #*@! Is next?” is the best they can offer.

To this day, that post is a favorite.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/what-the-is-next.html

It even made it into the archival section of TrueTom vs the Apostates! 

After I wrote all I was ready to write, the book still wasn’t long enough. So I threw in posts written over the years that anticipated various brouhahas now coming to a head.

[Srecko Sostar]

11 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

So, put up or shut up!!

No comment  

[JW Insider]

On 3/19/2021 at 12:25 PM, Anna said:

In context, Jesus at Luke 21:8  is talking about a person's impersonating or saying they are the expected Messiah during the time of the end. Russell did no such thing.

Just for a laugh, people should know that Russell did also claim to be "The Christ." He claimed that all 144,001 members of Christ's body were "The Christ."

[TrueTomHarley]

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Just for a laugh, people should know that Russell did also claim to be "The Christ." He claimed that all 144,001 members of Christ's body were "The Christ."

Ah well—if he did he took it back, didn’t he? All’s well.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

16 hours ago, César Chávez said:

you know how Russell felt back then, when he felt, Jesus presence in 1874. People can feel Jesus presence when they are in tune with their faith, by the spirit of God.

Oh dear, when are the men in white coats coming to get you. 

If, and it's a big IF, anyone could feel Jesus' presence, it would only be the True Anointed, because Jesus said when two or more of them gather together, he would be there amongst them. That is why your GB doesn't want the Anointed to gather together. 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Just for a laugh, people should know that Russell did also claim to be "The Christ." He claimed that all 144,001 members of Christ's body were "The Christ."

Is that blasphemy ?  And if Russell was being guided by God through Christ, Russell would never have done it. I think this is another proof that Russell did not have God's guidance. 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Is that blasphemy ?  And if Russell was being guided by God through Christ, Russell would never have done it.

I think that if you understood the whole picture of Russell's attempt (and the difficulties) to make all scripture fit into one complete view, you would never call it blasphemy. In fact, I don't think you could even provide any "proof" that he was wrong. Take the following two passages from 1 Corinthians for example:

(1 Corinthians 12:12) For just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although many, are one body, so too is the Christ.

(1 Corinthians 6:15) Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?

Paul could easily be interpreted as saying that each and every one of the "Anointed" (which is an English word for the Greek word "Christ") are therefore all included in the "Anointed." Therefore this interpretation was imposed back upon Ephesians 1:9, so that the very doctrine of all 144,000 being gathered into the Christ, was considered to be the "mystery" or the "sacred secret:"

(Ephesians 1:9, 10) ⁹ by making known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed ¹⁰ for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. . . .

The better understanding, of course, is that the 144,000 are in close union with Christ, and only the primary one, the Head, should be called "The Christ" or the "Anointed One."

(Galatians 3:16) . . .. It says, not: “And to seeds,” as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: “And to your seed,” who is Christ.