Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/04/2019 in Posts

  1. 10 points
    I sincerely hope he doesn't change. I've enjoyed his brutal truth throughout the years. Courage is not something that needs changing. I hope you are ok @James Thomas Rook Jr.
  2. 7 points
    In good times, and bad times, in times easy and times hard, I have relied on the JW-Archive as a sounding board for many things, and appreciate the forbearance when I have ranted and raved about all sorts of things, even from the Librarian, who often deleted my posts, with cause. I have come to the conclusion that logic and reason is not the end-all that I had aspired to, and that all things being considered, it would have been better for me to be "Brother Watchtower", than the man I have become. I am 73 years old, and I probably do not have time to change .... realistically, but for 14 billion years I did not exist, and I don't remember it bothering me any. My Wife Susan, and my sons and daughter will fulfill whatever unfulfilled dreams I had, as the stars I could reach ... were just starfish on the beach. With whatever time I have left, it is going to be my life's challenge, so I bid each of you so long, and hope you stay closer to Jehovah than I did. ....and like Forest Gump said "... and that's all I am going to say about that." Goodby.
  3. 7 points
    Witnesses did not predict anything. The magazine highlighted what the experts said - their educated guess - and brought it to the attention of the readers of Awake magazine, like they do with many important and timely subjects. Get over it!
  4. 7 points
    Of course, there was that "God-damned" snake in the grass back in Eden. It was cursed to crawl on the ground and lick the dust with its [forked] tongue. Then there were those pigs that allowed themselves to be possessed by demons, and were driven to commit suicide. Certain animals might have listened to communication from God to be able to receive a name from Adam. The same could be said for the animals that listened to communication from God to get on Noah's ark. Or for ravens to find Elijah to bring him food. Or, perhaps even a big fish who nearly snacked on Jonah. And there's that special relationship between Jehovah and Leviathan and Behemoth. God gives animals "meat in due season" (food at the proper time): (Psalm 104:27) . . .All of them wait for you To give them their food in its season. And a donkey evidently saved a man's life by ascertaining an invisible angel. On a serious note, I think most people agree that many persons have an unbalanced view of pets. But it's also easy to get unbalanced in the direction of disdaining pets and animals. Remember that Jehovah himself rejoices at his works which obviously includes his many interactions with animals according to the context of Psalm 104. (Psalm 104:28-31) . . .What you give them, they gather. When you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things. 29 When you hide your face, they are disturbed. If you take away their spirit, they die and return to the dust. 30 If you send out your spirit, they are created, And you renew the surface of the ground. 31 The glory of Jehovah will last forever. Jehovah will rejoice in his works.
  5. 6 points
    In this world nothing is perfect because humans tend to overstep boundaries - even Moses did so. But if we are really prepared to give our life for another (spirit of christ), then reading our bible and sticking close to jehovah would be our main goal - and spreading the core teachings of the bible, such as the kingdom government. This saves lives. No other actions are worth a reward from jehovah more than these. To humbly serve others. Literal rebellion against any other human (turn the other cheek ), or earthly institution would not come up in our mind......BUT: this would not in any way mean that we tolerate any form of ' yeast'. Our conscience will help us to quickly quelch any form of wickedness or even speak up against evil, when needed, in a kind and loving way. This is possible within our small sphere of influence..... If this was the prevailing attitude (which is closer to perfection) in the entire organization, from top to bottom, everything would run better. But people are always overstepping boundaries due to imperfection. They go overboard or extend their influence. Because : if you read the quoted scriptures above (several people referred to scriptures) about humility, not being contentious, then a TRUE Christian with a genuine humble spirit will self-regulate. Granted, self-control regarding bad inclinations is the hardest part of being a Christian..... and to my thinking receives too little attention. We will do NOTHING out of egotism which can hurt our brothers or sisters and not overstep the invisible boundaries but stay in JEhovahs love. (The governing body and Feruli included). If everyone had this spirit not even elders would be necessary. But jehovah in his wisdom knew that we are dust and set a precedent in first century Jerusalem and also gave us elders and ministerial servants........ because we as humans need some form of facilitation. A world- wide organization needs some form of coordination and fiscal management as well as policy management. Neglect of management direction brought the tolerance of child molestation accusations. If they manage too much they are called dictators.... if they manage to little they are called incompetent and degenerate regarding morals.... the pharisees and self-appointed judges of our time are everywhere! Is it just a form of public rebellion? Or has he seen specific abuses of people by the GB? (Not mistakes, but abuses of trust which can be proved....) HERE IS MY OPINION: In my secular working life I have seen CEOs of global corporations move from one corporation to another. Many have good degrees and without a doubt walk around like gods ......with everyone in fear of them, pandering to them to obtain a favourable eye..... following every instruction to the letter...... or lose their jobs. When these CEOs have made many arbitrary decisions, which bring the company almost to ruin, they usually leave just in time so someone else can pick up the pieces. They do NOT navigate companies through hard financial times perfectly because their chrystal balls are usually defective. (I worked for the 4th largest logistics company in the world in 2008). Yet, these CEO's CVs read like a dream, they were CEOs of several companies, maybe a fortune 500 company, and are celebrated, get millions of dollars in bonuses, get astounding salaries, chauffeurs, trips with business air seats etc....... despite all the wrong decisions and attitudes. They are truly a mini-government, fat cats with perks that will make the Sun king blush. In contrast, simple men take a world-wide responsibility and in the process get a lot of respect (not worship). They have small personal perks which can never ever be measured up against a secular company. They cannot change jobs when they have messed up or made a mistake. THey are more accountable than CEOs because they have to fix up their own mistakes and face the music........and eager worldly criticism.... AND on top of that are accountable to Jehovah. Most people expect NO mistakes (always highlight even small mistakes) and they are always accused (by opposers) of setting themselves up as gods. People judge them so easily....... even though they are navigating us through highly critical financial times and even critical spiritual times. Did Jesus not predict that many would leave the faith and turn against brothers? I am sure there is more is to come..... when brazen opposers stand up in the congregation and betray brothers. I can only encourage brothers to not be 'swayed' by these winds that bring cross-winds and storms before the end... Steadily stay the course.... eyes humbly focussed on the promised target - everlasting life.
  6. 6 points
    I brought it up because it's one of several places where Furuli's book provides the exact type of anecdote I am familiar with. These types of interactions were evidently memorable and important to Furuli, too. But you might recall that among Witnesses it started with a basis in the Watch Tower publications. We have all the evidence that the initial speculation and the promotion of that speculation came directly from the publications and later from talking points from Circuit and District Servants (Overseers). Of course, the Watchtower had used the date 1975 to promote speculation about what might likely happen in the mid-1970's, not 1975 specifically. Individuals, especially Circuit and District Overseers, and evidently FWFranz himself, speculated that this meant 1975 itself was just about the last possible year for Armageddon. Franz' early articles made it clear that, at most, it could only be a matter of weeks or months, but NOT years after October 1975. In other words, F.W.Franz promoted speculation that this system could not go beyond October 1977 because then it really would be "YEARS" after 1975. Mostly circuit and district overseers, those who held themselves out to be very careful readers of what the Society was actually saying here, were pointing out to audiences that if you read very closely, and with discernment, you will see that this is what the Society wants us to realize: That it's VERY unlikely that this system would go even as far as past 1975, or even if it did, it would only be a matter of months past 1975, not years. Therefore, we were supposed to speculate that Armageddon would come in the mid-1970s, not 1975 specifically. But the term "1975" became the shorthand for "mid-1970s" and this speculation about the mid-70s naturally became focused on the specific year 1975. So much so that when 1975 ended, almost all the talk of the mid-1970s ended then, too. That initial speculation that was promoted at the summer conventions in 1966 was followed up with speakers assigned to promote more speculation at the Circuit Assemblies in 1967. Then the "months, not years" Watchtower came out in 1968, and it was the same Watchtower that indicated it was wrong to use Matthew 24:36 to balance the enthusiasm about 1975/mid-70s. In 1969, it was predicted that young ones should not plan to go to college, and especially not anything like a 4-year college degree because they would not likely finish that degree in this old system. And, of course, it was also predicted that no young ones would every grow old in this system. They definitely would not be able to start a career in this system. By 1973, the publications were praising those who were selling their houses to spend the remaining months in full-time service. There might have been a few cautionary statements at the beginning, but they died out quickly, and we were told not to "toy" with scriptures that made cautionary statements in 1968. . It was not until 1974 that some of those more cautionary statements came out. My father gave at least one of these Circuit Assembly talks every year from 1967 to about 1972. He used Matthew 24:36 as a cautionary statement, even though he was not supposed to do that, according to the 1968 "months, not years" Watchtower. By 1974 it was obvious that things were not really going as planned. (Inside Bethel, FWFranz was beginning to talk about 1974 as the likely year, even more likely than 1975) so when 1974 wasn't seeing things happening quickly even FWFranz himself began giving cautionary talks. An experiment that might tell you something of the timing of these cautionary talks is reflected, I think, in the number of times Matthew 24:42, 24:36 and Mark 13:32 was quoted in the Watchtower: “Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming." 1964 ONCE 1965 through 1974: ZERO TIMES!!! 1975: TWICE 1976: ONCE 1977: ZERO 1978: ONCE 1979 - 1993 ZERO And how about the same for Matthew 24:36: (Matthew 24:36) (Mark 13:32) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, . . . 1965: TWICE 1966: ZERO 1967: ONCE 1968: TWICE (but including the article against using it!) 1969 through 1973: ZERO TIMES!!! 1974: ONCE 1975: FOUR TIMES!! 1976: ZERO 1977: ZERO 1978: ZERO Such important scriptures nearly skipped from 1966 to 1974!!! Only brought up again in 1974 and 1975.
  7. 6 points
    A newspaper of Angola published praising Jehovah's Witnesses on prevention measures against coronavirus (Covid-19).. And the newspaper also announced that Jehovah's witnesses in all over the world have contributed a lot to the prevention of the coronavirus through its official website JW.org. And the newspaper also showed some links of how people can search on JW.org, and it also mentioned the journal! N-' 6, 2016 with the theme: "Win the war on diseases". Source: Angola newspaper 23/04/2020
  8. 6 points
    I think you have stated the question very well and have already implied the answers. Yes, some see it as a ritual. But it really is a ritual, just as baptism is a ritual that is not optional. Some religions also treat all wedding ceremonies and even funerals as rituals. Some have different or additional rites and rituals. For one who considers himself or herself anointed, it is like baptism: not an optional ritual. As you (and the WT said) the important thing is not to see the ritual as something more than it is. It is not a necessary part of salvation, but an opportunity for a personal and public expression of faith, just like baptism. Although it seems appropriate that members of the other sheep should joyfully celebrate such expressions of faith by the anointed, it is too solemn to be considered a celebration. It is often more solemn than some Witness funerals. There is such quiet and seriousness, that no one even seems to notice if someone, somewhere in the Hall, had partaken. Sometimes, I only notice whether all the glasses, initially filled to exactly the same height, come back to the front table with one of them having less wine in it. And then I wonder if there was a partaker, or if some sister got some wine accidentally spilled on her dress. For a time, the Watchtower made it clear that persons who were of the "other sheep" class, were not invited to the Memorial. Some time later, it was made clear that they would not partake of the emblems and they were invited to join. Sometimes (rarely) we hear the objection that the other sheep only attend in order to show that they are refusing to follow Jesus command to "Take, Eat!" and "Take. Drink!" Or even as if we are only there to physically reject the symbols of Jesus' ransom, I have answered that this is just as much a way for the other sheep to express their faith in an earthly paradise under the rule of Jesus and the 144,000 but separate from them. I have seen Memorials where the scene is "over-the-top" ritualistic when the emblems are offered and refused by the speaker. It can seem even more so where the speaker partakes, and it looks like the changing of the guard at Buckingham when a specially choreographed arrangement is made on the stage for up to 4 servers and the speaker to pass the emblems among themselves, with the speaker in the middle and a table off to each side.
  9. 6 points
      Hello guest!
    Rwanda’s descent into terror in April 1994 took an estimated one million lives in a mere 100 days. The Genocide against the Tutsi in this overwhelmingly Christian country was horrifying for its intimacy: Killers and victims were neighbors, friends, fellow churchgoers, workmates, even spouses. Murderers carried crude implements—machetes, hoes, nail-studded clubs—and lists of those doomed to die. Gatineau, Quebec—Tharcisse Seminega was marked for slaughter. With all escape routes seemingly cut off, he, his wife, and their five young children sat helplessly awaiting death. Seminega, a Tutsi and former Catholic seminarian, taught at the National University in Butare. Extremist Hutu faculty orchestrated the murder of Tutsi professors and students. But just minutes before a Hutu professor arrived with soldiers at Seminega’s house, Hutu friends helped the family flee. The new memoir No Greater Love—How My Family Survived the Genocide in Rwanda relates how, during the next 75 days, Seminega and his family evaded the machetes with the help of about 20 Hutu rescuers who took unthinkable risks to hide and sustain them. These rescuers knew that if the génocidaires caught them, they faced an agonizing death as traitors to the Hutu cause. Most of the rescuers belonged to the Jehovah’s Witness community, of which Seminega was a part. His wife, a former nun, feared to join him, knowing that the Witnesses had long been oppressed for refusing to take up weapons or participate in politics. Because of this apolitical teaching, writes genocide scholar Rhoda Howard-Hassmann, “Hutu Witnesses were impervious to calls for patriotic Hutu to take part in mass killings”; and yet “to do nothing was also against their Christian principles.” Professor Seminega says that his family’s rescuers and other Witnesses followed Jesus’ “new commandment”—To love one another just as he loved them, even to the death. They sheltered not only fellow believers but others who knew that Witnesses would not harm or betray them. Of 2,500 Witnesses in Rwanda in 1994, about 400 were murdered, Tutsi as well as Hutu who tried to rescue Tutsi or who refused to kill. After the genocide, researchers documented widespread complicity among church leaders and members. States one study: “All the churches active in Rwanda, with the exception of the Jehovah’s Witnesses” were involved in the genocide. Now, Professor Seminega speaks with classes via Skype about his family’s story. In paying tribute to his rescuers, Seminega says: “Their selfless acts move me every day to ask, how far will my love reach?”
  10. 6 points
    Confidentiality: "There are two views held by state courts regarding confidentiality as it pertains to clergy privilege. In two-thirds of the states, a communication is considered confidential if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present for the purpose of the communication. In one-third of the states, privileged communication means a communication made in confidence only to the minister, with no third person present". Taken from:
      Hello guest!
  11. 6 points
    Yikes! $50 per minute to speak with a householder?! So says a gag sign posted on someone’s porch. “Doorknockers, please note. This householder charges $50 per minute to listen to any sales pitch, religious messages, or fundraising stories! Payment required in advance. By knocking on this door, you indicate that you are agreeing to these terms.” Video has captured a couple of visitors—our people, I think. The one on the sidewalk says: “What’s it say?” and the nearsighted woman squinting to read it responds with: “Let’s skip this one.” I’m done for if this catches on!...... Actually, as far as I am concerned, this sign represents a win-win. It does not make me mad. It is doing me a favor. If anyone doesn’t want to talk to me, then I don’t want to talk to them. There is a squirrelly assumption that underpins this meme: that Jehovah’s Witnesses are determined to talk to each householder no matter what,and are incredibly frustrated if stymied. It plays into the infantile view that they are “recruiting,” a view popularly spread by “anti-cultists” who obsess over all the ways that people can “manipulate” others. They abhor all forms of “brainwashing” except for the brainwashing that is theirs, as they safeguard mainstream values—values that have not worked out very well insofar as promoting overall peace and well-being. If the mainstream thinking contained answers to the vexing questions of life, people would’t have to worry for one second about “sects” and even “cults”—they would be rejected out of hand. So are Jehovah’s Witnesses “recruiting?” “I am going to ask you to convert,” I told a certain householder, “but it is not going to happen until the 100th call—and what are the chances It will go on for so long? In the meantime, it is just conversation.” To householders who state they have their own religion or spirituality and who decline conversation on that basis I say, “Well, I’m not going to ask you to change, and if I do, you can say No.” I mean, it is fine to decline conversation—more people do than do not—but just not on that basis. You might say it to an evangelical Christian—the sort that actually dofeature instant conversion of the “Come down and be saved!” variety. You might say it to a Moonie, because their people are known to disappear off the surface of the globe, only to reappear selling flowers in robes. But you ought not say it to one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose members live and work in the general community. No, the sign does me a favor. I have no problem with it. It might be different if they proliferated so that they became a commonplace gag sign, just a fad witticism inspired by late-night TV that didn’t necessarily mean anything. In that case, I might just walk away or I might playfully attempt to negotiate terms before deciding if I wanted to enter into such a “contract.” “Well, a guy has to serve the Lord,” I will say non-aggresively to some while trying to size them up. You’ve got to have a sense of humor. Like a No Soliciting sign, there are no legal consequences to blowing past it, [in the U.S.—it may be different elsewhere] and like a No Soliciting sign, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. It might be put up by a previous owner, and the current one sees no reason to remove it. It might be put up by a family member that died. It might have been put up after those pushy people selling vacuum cleaners left. It might be put up in the heat of election campaign season. It might be put up to dissuade Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I do not assume that is the case. ”I saw your sign and was a little concerned that you might think it applies to me,” I sometimes say when one of them is staring me in the face. “It doesn’t—but you might think it does.” You can assess by the response if the householder had that intention or not, and if he did, I have no problem moving on from what would cause both of us stress. Don’t argue, “We’re not soliciting,” because it really doesn’t matter whether you are or not. What matters is what the householder thinks you are doing. Of course, you can tell him that what he thinks is wrong, but that is never a fine foundation for a visit, is it? I have said at times, when my attention is directed to such a sign, “Oh. Well....I’ll make sure not to do that, then,” either by soliciting money (which Witnesses never do) or soliciting opinions—drawing people out—which we do. Simply tell them stuff, don’t ask them a thing—that is enough to technically comply with such a sign. But the trick is not to argue over technicalities. The trick is to see if such and such a vague sign actually means anything to the householder and respect his wishes if it does. No, a No Soliciting sign means nothing legally, same as this new $50 per hour JW sign that some are giggling over means nothing. The only sign with legal consequences (in the US) is a No Trespassing sign, and even that only has legal consequences for individual dwellings—you can’t wall off an entire community with a No Trespassing sign. To be sure, some are trying to change that, but the idea of answering for large swaths of other people is repugnant to most and so the change may not readily happen. Let’s face, this sign is kind of crude, and not too many people are going to put one up. It is sort of like that sign in which you find yourself as though staring down the barrel of a gun that says, “Never mind the dog! Beware of the owner!” I don’t just jauntily breeze by that sign as though is was a Welcome mat. I tread a bit cautiously. If my companion was to turn around and leave, I wouldn’t blame him a bit. Still, you never know. I was leaving one such home—no one had answered—and as I was walking away, a pickup truck drove in with a gun rack in the back window. “Great!” I muttered to myself—“probably a real hothead here!” He turned out to be the nicest guy in the world—very respectful of our purpose and of the Bible. There was a lot of crime in the neighborhood and he had just “weaponed-up” for the protection of his family. These signs are not a red light—No Soliciting, Beware of Whatever—but they certainly are a yellow light. They are not a yellow light legally, but they are a yellow light in that they might reveal something of thehouseholders wishes, and I have no problem always complying with their wishes once I know what they are. As it is, Jehovah’s Witnesses have a method to keep note of those who have emphatically said that the don’t want JW calls ever. It is an imperfect system and I usually forget to consult it, but it works better than nothing. Ironically, it may all vanish one day if the current “data-keeping” laws gathering steam in Europe, spearheaded by the same people who see “manipulation” everywhere, spreads to the US. It will be illegal to keep track of who doesn’t want a call. As it is, one US brother I know reported on a trip to Europe and how the brothers there were wrestling with these new anti data-gathering laws that had never been intended (at least, by most) for them, but were being applied to them, with: “Good! They’ve just made your job easier! Preach to one and all and don’t worry about any “records”—keeping track of them is a pain in the neck!” What about a child answering the door? For me, that depends upon the age of the child. For a teen, sometimes I will go Bible-lite, such as commenting on what the words of the Lord’s Prayer literally mean, and I do not press any point. Or show a video geared to teens—I have never had a teen not pay rapt attention to the video, “Be Social-Network Smart.” With teens, I have sometimes told them that I really don’t know what to do with teens, because they are learning and gathering data, but they are also under their parent’s roof, with the latter guiding that process, and so they may or may not want them speaking to persons of different beliefs at the door, and ‘which is it with them’? Even that doesn’t guarantee anything. One parent that I finally encountered said, “I don’t appreciate you speaking to my children,”—I had done so twice and had shown a couple of videos. I responded that I had never been looking for the kids—I had been looking for her—and that when the teens had answered I had asked them whether their parents would want them speaking to a visitor about religion and they had said she would not care. “Kids will say anything!” she told me. So I explained that I would not call again (she said ‘thank you’), repeated that I had never been looking for them in the first place, and even was able to give a brief synopsis for why we call at all—she became pleasant. Another teen—I had just finished something brief and similar—he had been home alone. As I left, the mother drove up in the driveway. I told her who I was, that I had spent a few minutes speaking with her son, I had asked him a question and he had answered intelligently. “You should be proud of him,” I said as I took my leave. Cultures are different. I once handed a tract to a child with directions to give it to her parents, and upon leaving, my companion said that she would have witnessed to the child. My companion was newly arrived from South America where it is commonplace for parents to allow and even encourage children to talk religion to anyone calling about it. There are congregations there heavily populated by children with the full blessing of parents who do not attend themselves—respect for God runs deep in some lands and the assumption is that you cannot go wrong allowing your children to learn about the Bible. Though the following has nothing to do with the Bible, it has everything to do with that fact that cultures are different, and so when the Witness organization speaks in a way that is not really my cup of tea, I say, “It is probably one of those others cultures that they are taking into consideration.” There is a large community of deaf persons in Rochester NY. Accordingly, there are a number of Witnesses who make their living as translators. One of them told me of a certain deaf family of two adults and two children—all deaf—who are known not only locally but also nationally, and the following story is told nationally as a way of highlighting the challenges of catering to different cultures: A neighboring “hearing” girl would come over to play at the home of the deaf family. The two children were surprised that she didn’t seem able to sign very well at all, but they all managed to sign well enough to each other to get by. Then the two children went to the little girl’s home to play, where they saw the mother not signing at all! Her mouth kept moving, and the little girl seemed satisfied with that, but there was no signing. Upon returning home, they related their bewilderment to their parents and asked, “Are there other people like that?”
  12. 6 points
    JW Insider

    WT Society and Religious Education

    This could be true for some. No one was telling me I couldn't go to college, though. Their concern was that it would set a poor example to appoint an elder and then the congregation simultaneously found out I was going to college. But if a congregation needs elders, there is almost no difference in the amount and types of assignments given to ministerial servants. Even as an MS, I had been giving 5 different public talks (3 from the outlines), and was still being invited to give some of them in different congregations every few weeks. I believe I had either the 15 minute "Instruction Talk" or a 15 minute part on the Service Meeting about 3 times a month. And I was not told I had to pioneer, while attending college, but had offered this idea as a way to show that college was a not a full time priority in my life. No one held me to it anyway, as I only could manage pioneering for two more years. In my third year I was offered a great job and started it before graduation. But still, it's always good counsel to give to anyone who is thinking about college, that they think about their priorities before making a decision. I've given the same counsel to others, but I make sure they still know it's their own choice, and we wish them all the best outcomes. But then 30 years later, the issue comes up again with my own children. The need to step down as an elder if your kids go to college is not enforced consistently, at least in the United States. When children get large scholarships it can make it more sensible economically to go to a four year college, but it still gives the impression that you are putting economic and material interests ahead of the urgency necessary based on the shortness of the time to the end. The issue of setting a good example is not just for the congregation, but also the fact that you might not even have your own family in "subjection." Of course, kids go to college when they are 18, and I don't believe in "subjection" at this point in their lives. I believe in learning from my kids, and letting myself be subjected to hearing about what they are learning. I am not concerned too much about the Society's position on higher education. At this point, the economic benefits are too often a trap due to the high cost and doubtful employment outcomes. And although I'm sure I'd be welcomed to return as an elder, I am happy with all the things that can be done without the title. Also, you might know that I have a lot of difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote shunning, 1914, the sign, the generation, the "presence," and few other things on which we might well be right, but are too dogmatic about. I'm happy to wait until the pendulum swings in the direction of less dogma. Titles are not important.
  13. 6 points
    Anna

    Suicide. God's view. Organisation's view

    No new light, just the elder's opinion, and not a very good one at that. It still stands that Jehovah will be the judge as he knows the reasons and circumstance.
  14. 6 points
    Next week DV I will know, and will tell you. Maybe this time your children will learn something that will show them the need to visit more often and to process information so they practice godly devotion more fully which includes checking on your parents. (mentioned somewhere in 1 Timothy.) Work in progress.
  15. 6 points
    Law of diminishing returns is also a fundamental principle in Economics, not only Engineering. And you talking money already. But remember you go to meeting every week and you don't necessarily learn anything new, it costs clothes, gas, tyres, road tax, etc. The Convention is just a bigger meeting. You don't complain for regular meeting, so why complain for a more exciting, bigger meeting, even if you are eating ordinary spiritual food served in prettier plates or settings. Where did you meet your wife? Put yourself in the place of those who are new to the spiritual food, are now meeting other Witnesses/Christians or are even looking for mates, all these are normal things Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24. But he said some would take no note of the spiritual things until they are swept away. So what can you/I do to show more appreciation for what may begin to look ordinary? Form a longing for the ordinary food (milk) - it is necessary to grow from infancy to maturity both literally and spiritually; it will help you to grow to salvation. You know a year in advance and you prepare with anticipation. When it comes you show appreciation. I already have three sets of clothes put out and a bag packed. My convention is next week. I got my lapel card today. (1 Peter 2:2) "As newborn infants, form a longing for the unadulterated milk of the word, so that by means of it you may grow to salvation," Even if we really knew everything that we need to know, we are all works in progress, we need to work on what we know. There is always room for improvement in putting on the complete suit of armour and the new personality; in setting spiritual goals. (Ephesians 4:23, 24) And you should continue to be made new in your dominant mental attitude, 24 and should put on the new personality that was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty. Always remember that the Israelites complained about the manna, then God send the bird with lots of flesh and while they were still eating they were punished. (Someone can enlarge on the reasons why he gave them meat and then punished them.) (Numbers 11:31-34) 31 Then a wind from Jehovah sprang up and began driving quail from the sea and causing them to fall around the camp, about a day’s journey on this side and a day’s journey on the other side, all around the camp, and they were about two cubits deep on the ground. 32 So all that day and all night and all the next day, the people stayed up and gathered the quail. No one gathered less than ten hoʹmers, and they kept spreading them all around the camp for themselves. 33 But while the meat was still between their teeth, before it could be chewed, Jehovah’s anger blazed against the people, and Jehovah began striking the people with a very great slaughter. 34 So they gave that place the name Kibʹroth-hat·taʹa·vah, because there they buried the people who showed selfish craving. Let's appreciate the spiritual manna. Fancy a dish prepared by God himself and people were complaining about it! If we were starving and someone gave us plain rice and water, it would help us to survive, though it might not satisfy us completely. While we are excited about new information, we still need the milk of the word as it would help us to live to salvation. It would help us renew our goals, remind us of what we already know, and keep us on the path to salvation as the apostle Peter said. We need manna and milk to live, grow and mature. People would be there who are at different stages of Christian development; some still need milk, some would be there who need solid food, some would be there who need the deeper things of God to satisfy them, but we all need spiritual food. "Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need". Matt 5:3. If and when we get into the Kingdom of God, we will be learning about love forever, as there will always be Jehovah, Jesus, and people to love. Love (Agape) never fails. (1 Cor 13:8)
  16. 5 points
    Here is the MEETING WORKBOOK material for weeks of June 22-28 and June 29–July 5, 2020. TB CBS June 22-28, 2020.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of June 22-28, 2020.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of June 22-28, 2020.pdf Watchtower June 22-28, 2020.doc Watchtower June 22-28, 2020.pdf Additional Highlights -June 22-28, 2020.doc Additional Highlights -June 22-28, 2020.pdf CBS June 22-28, 2020.doc CBS June 29–July 5, 2020.doc Additional Highlights -June 29–July 5, 2020.pdf Additional Highlights -June 29–July 5, 2020.doc Watchtower June 29, 2020–July 5, 2020.pdf Watchtower June 29, 2020–July 5, 2020.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of June 29–July 5, 2020.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of June 29–July 5, 2020.doc CBS June 29–July 5, 2020.pdf
  17. 5 points
    These days a lot of people who do not have the time, money or wherewithal to become scholars, scientists, journalists, or specialists will still tend to find some vicarious thrill in presenting themselves as "scholars" because they love the actual scholarship of another person. Similarly, some consider themselves vicarious "journalists" (or at least "specialists") on many topics because they have found journalists, or more often "journalistic entertainers," who support their ideologies. (In the USA, this would include persons like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Anderson Cooper, Alex Jones, Chris Cuomo, etc.) The "vicarious thrill" happens especially when a well-known professional scholar, scientist, politician, journalist or entertainer agrees with our own personal ideology or beliefs. The thrill is slightly higher when it's an unexpected source, as when a climate scientist admits a failure in the climate beliefs of the opposing ideology. Or when a respected academic source, or even "fundamentalist Christian" scholar admits that the Trinity was not a first century Christian belief. Over the past few years @scholar JW and "Allen Smith"/"Billy The Kid" aka @César Chávez have praised Rolf Furuli to such an extent that I was not the only one who wondered if both "scholar" and "Cesar" were not also enjoying a kind of vicarious thrill of being able to call their own ideological position "scholarly" because an actual academic scholar like Furuli gave them that foundation. And it no doubt appealed to the Watch Tower Society to find a person like Furuli for the same reasons and present his unique take on one of the neo-Babylonian astronomical tablets. And I would have to admit that for me personally I have sometimes been thrilled to discover that many archaeologists have uncovered items of interest to Bible believers that help indicate the historical accuracy of the Bible in the face of nay-sayers. And when it was first pointed out to me why the doctrine of the "1914 generation" was not supported Biblically, I was thrilled to discover that two members of the GB would admit right in front of me that they also didn't fully support it, and that at least 3 additional GB members had said similar things in writing or told to persons I trusted about that topic. And when it turns out that a Greg Stafford, or a Gerard Gertoux, also agrees in many ways about the 1914 doctrine, it could be seen as adding "authority" to my own beliefs. So, I am definitely not immune to the "argument from authority" which can often turn out to be a logical fallacy. But what happens when Gerard Gertoux is rejected as a scholar due to a position on 1914, or a person like Greg Stafford defends JWs very well for years, but then leaves or rejects the Witnesses altogether? In the past few years, both "scholar JW" and "Cesar" have been asked what they would do if Furuli stopped believing as he did. Neither answered that question. But both of them, on this forum, seem to have been as supportive as possible of Furuli, up to a point. I don't think "scholar JW" will come back now that he has been asked this question directly, this time by Ann O'Maly. "Cesar" has been slowly weakening in his supportive position, as I'm sure he is discovering that some of the words he thought were being misrepresented were actually a very good representation of Furuli's actual words. Fortunately, for "scholar" and "Cesar," Furuli has not yet changed his position on 1914, and "scholar JW" immediately found that fact to be advantageous - because Furuli is finally (suddenly) an independent scholar. "Cesar" also still uses vague language to protect and defend Furuli. I believe it's because Furuli's scholarship on 1914 must be protected from his new theological reputation. As expected, this is not so different from what is done especially by ex-JWs and perhaps even some JWs for R.Franz and C.O.Jonsson for those who agree with their takes on theology or chronology, respectively. Some persons tend to want to overly protect the reputations of those men when it shouldn't matter in the long run. I think that some persons get overly involved in trying to make them out to be great Christians, when they never knew them, and only see through their own eyes "vicariously" through the books those men authored. This becomes more interesting with Furuli because 1914 is so tied up with the belief in the FDS who were recently identified with the GB (such as it was) back during that same 1914 time period. I don't expect Furuli to weaken any time soon on the 1914 doctrine because he invested his entire reputation on 1914 and scholarship, and it is his own reputation he is apparently trying to salvage among his fellow brothers and sisters. He wants it to be clear that he has never left the religion and that if he is kicked out it was only because some imperfect but sincere men did not like an important anomaly in his theology. The "optics" of that perspective might even save him from being officially kicked out in any formal or public way. But Furuli is rejecting what has seemed to become the most re-emphaisized "touchstone" of the modern theological themes in the Watch Tower publications: that of obedience to the FDS. It's an old theme but necessarily returning because it's now so much more tangible. Previously, the "obedience" to the FDS was a spiritual obedience through appreciation of an entire spiritual "process" that was intangible. The FDS was a world-wide living remnant of the 144,000 who were somehow (spiritually) supporting a small group of representatives of themselves through the largely unknown (and idealized) teaching and writing and decision-making processes at the Watch Tower's headquarters in NY. The "obedience" of the 144,000 to a core group of anointed, centered around NY Bethel, became a model that the rest of us appreciated, largely for the intangible spiritual factors. (It was even suggested that members of the 144,000 who had died, were still communicating with this small group of representatives of the FDS.) But then it became more tangible when it was adjusted so that this appointed slave became "8 men" that you could watch and judge for yourselves on your "TV" or internet screens. You can watch them make mistakes right in front of you. You can watch them say questionable things and realize more easily than ever that they themselves are struggling with some issues (finances, legal challenges, "overlapping" generation, changing doctrines). This begins to take away the once intangible spiritual sheen, even though most of what they say is still very much appreciated and there is no need to question it.
  18. 5 points
    This could be an important key, or clue, as to why Furuli has gone this far. If he has become a policy "wonk," perhaps with a serious health problem, and lives in an online bubble, then his world might not be as safe for him as in a congregation of persons who will help keep you "grounded." House-to-house work will do the same as TTH already pointed out. But it's possible Furuli has bcome someone who lives for his reputation, and that reputation is all online these days. This is not the guess I would have made as to what triggered him to take it this far. But it might still be related. I would certainly like to have this cleared up myself if I were to begin trying to brainstorm ideas (or is it gossip?) about why he took the "book" step. He has quite possibly had troubles in the past with HQ, and if COJ is to be believed, others have been "stumbled" out of the organization over his attitude and tactics. But he is a more complex person than I imagined. Gossip exists that he was to be removed as an elder about two decades ago, but that the local body of elders in his congregation somehow out-voted the Circuit Overseer sent to handle the matter. That comes from a 12-year-old post on a site that I rarely visit except by Google-directed accidents. What makes it seem real, however, is that even 12 years ago, he was already taking the same stand against the "GB" on a couple of issues: # 1. Education. Furuli says: Do take education! # 2. Governing Body. Furuli says: GB is not spirit directed.(GB dont claim to be, but a lot of JW belive they are and enligthening the dubs are controversial.) # 3. Service. (Society says, do take part in all kinds of service like door to door, street work and bla bla.) Furuli says: You don't have do do everything. Do the kind of service that makes you comfortable. I don't know anything about who I was just quoting from that site. But to see that all this was documented 12 years ago says something about a longer struggle than I had imagined. I see the points numbered 1 and 2 even more deeply ingrained now, and point 3 hinted at, too. I went into some depth on the attitude of Fred Franz in earlier posts because it's part of my theory. I think Furuli is stuck on the man, (as both a gentleman and a scholar) and the whole Franz era, with all its types and antitypes, and chronologies, etc. I'm sure you are seeing that in the book, too. I think Furuli actually sees himself as capable of stepping into Franz' shoes and even improving the types and antitypes from that idealized era. Reading the book reminded me of the Annual Meeting talk by Brother Splane in October 2014. In that talk, Splane went on about a certain brother (A. Smith) who just loved the pyramidology theories. But when Rutherford dropped them as Satanic, Smith obediently dropped it too. But then Splane went on to talk about how wonderful and exciting the "types and antitypes" have appealed to certain ones, and how he hoped that these persons, too, will be able to gladly drop them. It made me think that Furuli had already been in correspondence about a couple of the old Franz-esque types and antitypes that had already been dismissed or greatly de-emphasized from "types" to "reminders" especially since 2010. Furuli would have had even more interest in giving feedback to the WTS over the 2013 release of the "Simplified" NWT, which he "trashes" in his book.
  19. 5 points
    I know this wasn't directed directly at me, but I am just as likely to ridicule the chart as several others around here. The reason is reason: (Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . . (2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. (James 1:22) . . .However, become doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning. . . (Romans 12:1) . . .Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. (James 3:17) 17 But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, reasonable, . . . This reminds me of the time when Rutherford began teaching about "Armageddon" in 1925 (and the start of the resurrection of the ancient worthies like Abraham and David). He said it was not just a possibility or probability, but the practical equivalent of a certainty. This teaching was Rutherford's most famous prophetic interpretation from the moment that he was supposed to have embodied the "faithful slave" and the "Governing Body" starting in 1919. The 1919 prophetic message "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" was a message about how people would stop dying in 1925. Should anyone have said anything to Rutherford about how unreasonable this idea was? Should anyone have said anything to anyone else who was teaching this? Rutherford was saying that his hearers and readers could be more certain of 1925 than Noah could have been certain about an imminent Flood. He said 1925 was more of a certainty than 1914 had been. (Which year had also been displayed in famous charts and chart-dependent presentations.) I think you are implying that out of respect for Rutherford (and the "faithful slave" and the "Governing Body") that no one should have pointed out that this was unreasonable. Something similar might go for the idea that the Governing Body said that there should be no divorce allowed for a sister in the congregation when her husband was found to be committing adultery with another man. In the latter case, I'm pretty sure that the rule was changed only when enough people were bold enough to make fun of it. If no one had spoken up, we might still be stuck with this unreasonable teaching. You point out that it now seems reasonable that the end might come about based upon the travails that the world is going through at this time. That might seem reasonable to a lot of people. Yet, even if it happens to be correct that we are currently listening to the world's "death rattle," it still does not follow that an unreasonable chart had anything to do with it. If the end comes tonight and someone later discovers that a man in, say, Northern Queensland had been holding up a sign to that effect in a cow pasture, we could not reasonably connect the man's sign to the end-times event.
  20. 5 points
    Most of these churches that defy government quarantine restrictions do so because they see the government being opportunistic—‘never let a crisis go to waste.’ They are intensely political on the right, celebrate the Bill of Rights, and they fear that government surveillance, monitoring, restrictions will not revert to normal after the crisis has passed. To them, the crisis is the wedge to introduce permanent restriction of freedom. Some see it as a deliberate move to so decimate capitalism that all that will be left is for socialism to take the helm. A fringe of these people even think the ‘crisis’ is manufactured for exactly that purpose—to extend control and restrictive means of government over all persons. And don’t get them going about Bill Gates! None of this is so absurd to be dismissed out of hand. See how popular Bernie Sanders is, or even Elizabeth Warren. The trouble with conspiracy theories is that once a few of them turn out to be true it becomes so much easier to swallow anything coming down the pipe. I am glad that we really don’t have to worry about it. We never put our trust in human institutions, so if it turns out that there are machinations amongst them, it does not unsettle us to the degree that it unsettles people who do put full trust in human self-rule. Nor do we look to human institutions for ‘staying power.’ If they don’t go down this way, they will go down that way. All we have to do is stay loyal to God, no matter what, and let the chips fall where they may. When push comes to shove, this life is not the ‘real’ life of 1 Timothy 6:19.
  21. 5 points
    Using the quotes extracted from Eusebius and Epaphanius in a Wiki article
      Hello guest!
    It might be interesting to note that the impetus to leave Jerusalem and go to Pella was not specifically credited to Jesus' prophecy in Matthew/Mark/Luke, but to an angel, or a specific oracle/revelation/prophecy given just before the war. This would put it on par with the prophecy of Agabus (Acts 11:27, 28) . . .In those days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them named Agʹa·bus stood up and foretold through the spirit that a great famine was about to come on the entire inhabited earth, which, in fact, did take place in the time of Claudius. This is a curious report then by Eusebius, that he doesn't tie it to Matthew 24, or Luke 21, for example. (Epiphanius may have "corrected" this nearly 100 years after Eusebius, when he credited the flight to Jesus warning about the city being surrounded.) The idea that the command only went to those in the city who were worthy, might also imply that there were reports that some [less worthy] Christians had died in Jerusalem's destruction. Epaphanius had referenced Jesus' prophecy in his book Panarion, but in "Weights and Measures" he pretty much agreed with Eusebius:
  22. 5 points
    Unfortunately, this has been going on even from the time that the scriptures were written, or at least from very shortly after the NT was completed. This means that even the very idea that there had been an escape to Pella might just be from persons with their own agenda. The best evidence that comes down to us is from Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis. Eusebius wrote his "Ecclesiastical History" (Church History) between about 300 and 325. Epiphanius would have written "Panarion" around 375. We don't know what, if anything, was written on this topic between 70 CE and 300 CE. So this might be a little like someone just now trying to make a story about what direction we believe small bands of native Americans (Indians) ran to in 1775 in upstate NY when Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold were capturing the guns at the British Fort Ticonderoga (which would just precede a siege of Boston and the building of a fortification of stakes around parts of that city). The "American Indians" were not a big part of that story, so there is very little written down about what they did. If someone came up with a new story about it 200 to 250 years later, we might not put much trust in it. But, then again, we might assume that there were some verbal or even written records that could be gathered up from various families in the area, and that there was some truth to such a story. We have some evidence that the apostles generally stayed in Jerusalem, per Jesus' instructions just after he was resurrected. In Galatians (and corroborated in Corinthians) Paul mentions a period of 14 years after his conversion when he finally goes to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles. If Paul converted before 36, then this refers to a time prior to 50 CE., when at least some apostles were still there. Peter and John are mentioned specifically, and James who was also mentioned had not been considered an apostle. Acts also does not mention any additional apostles (except Peter and James) still alive or around at this time. If there had been an instruction to all the apostles to stay in Jerusalem, for the purpose of forming an apostolic group to study the scriptures and devote themselves to prayer, then it may have already accomplished its purpose and broken up before 50 CE. We hear of the "The Twelve" in Acts 6, still in Jerusalem, when they send out Stephen and Philip, for example. (Still prior to Paul's conversion.) By chapter 8 of Acts we hear about the group of "apostles in Jerusalem," and how both Peter and John had been sent to Samaria (and we know from Galatians that Peter had gone as far as Antioch). But by chapter 11 of Acts we only hear of some older men in Jerusalem and only one apostle there, Peter. By the time we reach 11:29 we only hear about the effect of the famine on "the brothers living in Judea." This matches about the same timing as Paul spoke of in Galatians and elsewhere when Paul brought collections back to the brothers in Jerusalem "keeping the poor in mind." Then in the next verses of Acts (Acts 12:1-3) we see that Herod has just put the Apostle James (brother of John) to death (not the same James of "James, Peter, and John" in Galatians) and goes after Peter. After the destruction, we see John the apostle up around the isle of Patmos, but this could have been an exile from anywhere, not necessarily Jerusalem. So, we really don't know how long the apostles stayed together in Jerusalem, or whether Herod broke that up even prior to the work of Paul and Barnabas, that brought them to Jerusalem (Acts 15). No Bible writer mentions Pella. I don't think there is anyone we know about who mentioned anything about a flight to Pella until 200 years later. There are plenty of letters and stories and other Christian writings between 70 and 300, but no evidence about Pella. Still, we have the history (through Josephus) of the attack on Jerusalem, and the fact that the Romans started to attack in 66 and then decided to withdraw and not come back until they were ready to wage the war from start to finish in 70. Perhaps no Christians left in 66, although this seems like the time that would fit best. It's possible that most Christians had already left during Herod's persecution. It's possible that most Christians left just as the final approach was being made in 70 around the time of the Passover. The most "ideal" story says that Christians recognized Jesus warning when Jerusalem was approached in 66, and that they then left and stayed away for about a 3-and-a-half year period until Jerusalem was destroyed with its Temple in 70. But we have no evidence from Josephus or anyone else about that. It might also be wishful thinking to believe that no Christians were killed during the destruction of Jerusalem, as Epiphanius claimed 300 years later. As to the idea that John was the only apostle alive after 70, there is an interesting passage in John that seems to refer to his age and the timing of the parousia. (John 21:20-24) . . .Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, . . . 21 So when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” 23 So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true. I like your questions and there is much more to say about them, but I'll stop for now.
  23. 5 points
    Found on Facebook.
  24. 5 points
    The Librarian

    THE DEVIL’S BEST TOOL

    It was announced that the Devil was going out of business and that he would offer all his tools for sale to whom ever would pay the price. On the night of the sale, they were all attractively displayed and marked with a price, even so, they were a bad looking lot: Malice, Hatred, Envy, Deceit, Jealousy and Sensuality and all the other implements of evil were spread out. Apart from the rest, lay a harmless looking wedge shaped tool. Much worn and priced higher than any of the others. Someone asked the Devil, "What is that?" That is "DISCOURAGEMENT", THE DEVIL REPLIED! "But why do you have it priced so high?", the prospective purchaser inquired. BECAUSE SAID THE DEVIL; " It is more useful to me than any of the others. I can pry open and get inside a man's soul with it. I can do this when I can not get near him with any of the other tools I possess.. Once I get inside his mind with discouragement, I can use him in whatever way suits me best. The reason this tool is so worn, is that I can use it with nearly everyone. So, very few know that it belongs to me! It hardly needs to be added, that the Devil's price was so high for discouragement that it was never sold. He still owns it and uses it today! - contributed by email - Many thanks Jenni
  25. 5 points
    Anna

    1914

    Yes, and that according to Bible chronology, the FDS was appointed in 1919. So if 1914 was questioned, when were the FDS appointed? It would remove that whole aspect of what we have been taught, including the brothers being in prison. I agree though that in reality it shouldn't change much about the authority of those taking the lead, because the scriptures say to be obedient to them. And I agree with the sister, I thought it was nothing new either (regarding the FDS only being the GB). But still, everyone is aware that Jesus was supposed to have appointed a specific group to provide spiritual food. If 1914 was removed, that small specific group would be dispersed and would include anyone who was feeding others spiritually, as you have suggested. All this would remove the thought that the GB are the only channel God is using, although G.Jackson admitted that it would be presumptuous to think that they were the only chanel. However I don't think he, or any of the others have put this in writing in any of our publications though. So unless someone has read Jackson's ARC deposition, they will be under the impression that the FDS, therefore the GB are the ONLY chanel God is using, and therefore to question anything they say is tantamount to going against God himself. A few know this is not true, and the GB themselves think it's not true, but most r&f believe it. (As you know, this was the reason why I got kicked out of one forum*. And this is also why it appears that we "worship" the GB, because anything and everything they say is gold and must not be questioned, even if it could be wrong....because they are not infallible and can err...). *Questioning God is allowed, but questioning the GB is not! How strange is that?
  26. 5 points
    Outta Here

    1914

    Quite so. And the understanding we have now, as proclaimed by the GB of Jehovah's Witnesses and supported by their application of Scripture, would appear to me to bear this out. The various perspectives of those contributing to the discussion on this matter really would not exist at all if it were not for these proclamations at this time. The historical "curios" of understanding that have led people who have stuck with the organisation to this point of time are in the public domain, as are similar "artifacts" of all areas of human endeavour. Whether revered as trailblazing milestones in the search for truth, or ridiculed as crank-minded curios for the amusement of cynics, the body of historical thinking on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses serves really only one purpose. The 1st Century view of the apostle Paul on the effect of various expressions of opinion on Christianty is as valid today as it was at the the time it was written: "With what result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and I rejoice over this. In fact, I will also keep on rejoicing," Phillippians 1:18
  27. 5 points
    No surprise there! What I do NOT understand is the logic of the men who hate JWs. They try to prove that we are impure and allow homeosexuality (when we clearly do not) and in the next breath critisize us when we shun unrepentant homxosexuals and fornicators in cases where we DO have sufficient evidence.. They neglect to remember that experts find it hard to gather evidence. We are too harsh for our detractors when we shun when we have sufficient evidence and too compassionate when we do not have enough proof. We are too compassionate when someone has confessed (the law protects lawyers and spiritual leaders from disclosure of confessions - especially if this can be used against them in court - and the government has not removed this law but wants JWs to act against the law of the land. The police must do their own investigation and come up with the evidence or the congress must change the law...... but I doubt this will ever happen because many high officials are child molesters) ) and JWs are too compassionate to allow people off the street to attend our meetings not knowing if they have been molesters. So the best is to do the best possible we can do and leave the rest to Jehovah. Our detractors are angry because we DO follow the bible and its principles and the majority DO try to live clean lives ..... they hate it because they want to feel more pure while not caring for bible principals at all or still adhering to impure teachings such as trinity, immortality of the soul etc. That is a blanket statement and that usually is an indication of bitterness and resentment.......
  28. 5 points
    Good point Srecko. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the GB for creating a "certain" environment inside congregations though. In fact, (we know everything passes through the GB's hands for approval, if they haven't written it themselves) the above expressions must be what the GB agree with. Time and again I see that it is not the questions that are asked, or even expressing an opinion contrary to their own, but it's the way this is done and what is the the purpose for doing it. Most elders are willing to hear an opinion, and do not resent those who express an opinion contrary to their own. I know that from personal experience. However, if the motive is to exult your own ideas, to force people to listen to them over and over again, and to try and make people see it your way, then that is stirring up contentions and is eroding peace in the congregation. And those who erode peace, will eventually find themselves kicked out sooner or later. Just to illustrate; I told a few elders, in no uncertain terms, that I cannot agree with the "overlapping generation" idea, and I left it at that. No one has ever come after me, or tried to convince me otherwise, and we all remain good friends. Now you know what would happen if I started to aggressively push my opinion on every single person I came into contact with. In another instance; I rattled one sister's cage (it means irritated her) during a discussion in the car during field service (in the US a car load of friends go out). We were all talking about animals being friends in the paradise. I voiced my opinion that I believe there will still be the same food chain as there is now, with carnivores consuming the herbivores. I explained why I think that, but this one sister was adamant that lions will eat grass and will be buddies with the sheep. But we didn't argue who is right and who is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you are not trying to beat the other person over the head with it. So I think it is assumed that 'questioning and expressing an opinion' will be done in a civil way, to which those in a position of authority should have no trouble listening.
  29. 5 points
    First of all, before I begin answering, I wanted to say that I have long expected that any JWs who go online to defend their views publicly will see more and more of what is beginning to happen here. The specific challenges coming from you (@4Jah2me), @Witness and @Srecko Sostar (and a few others) have lately seemed like a stronger "anti-JW onslaught" than this forum has seen before. Personally, I think it's a good thing that more and more JWs are prepared for just this type of barrage. At the moment they are all coming apparently from ex-JWs that we would call "apostates." But the Internet easily allows anyone to become capable of bringing these exact same challenges to us. So they are not specifically "apostate" challenges. Of course, I've brought up some of these same challenges myself, because I think we all need to think about them before we answer with our typical, traditional responses. I believe that we need some doctrinal adjustments, and therefore, I'm not exactly defending the GB position against your challenges. I like it that @TrueTomHarley is standing in for me, but he is probably also concerned that, on my own, I'll end up throwing the GB under the bus. I'm not talking about some of the minor throw-away complaints (like 'Bible Studies are really just Book Studies' and we're trying to replace the Bible with these books, etc.). The GB challenge is probably the most difficult to address in a way that can rationalize some recent inconsistent statements, the play between spirit-directed and inspired, modern "apostolic" precedent, the GB's request to be trusted while admitting that some of the teachings and processes are bound to be mistaken now and then. And we have the challenge of when and whether conscience comes into play, whether legalism has gone too far, and truly difficult doctrines to defend such as overlapping groups within "this generation" and overlapping blood components with blood fractions, etc. Yes. The GB dictate to the congregations and, unless the dictate is seen as unconscionable or unscriptural, the members of the congregations are expected to obey. Naturally, this can go too far, but the reason for this should be easy to understand. For the following situation, for now, you might just want to insert your own view of what a proper Christian is, if you completely reject the possibility that a JW can be a true Christian: Hypothetically, a Christian may find himself/herself in a place with no fellow Christians to associate with, and all efforts to make disciples might fall on unproductive soil. But let's say that a Christian in this situation is happy and zealous for what he has learned from the Scriptures, has followed Jesus' command to make disciples so that others will know what Jesus taught, and is successful in converting 40 persons to Christianity and they all, because of their Bible reading, want to establish a community congregation to try to follow closely their view of the 1st century congregations as closely as possible. As everyone has unique abilities, and was converted at various times, the congregation will naturally have members of various levels of experience, and they likely want an orderly process for meeting and teaching and participating in the activities that they agree are important and consistent with their beliefs. Not everyone will want the same meeting times, not everyone will be teaching from the platform, or leading or suggesting the activities. There will be compromises as to meeting times, topics discussed, the depth or simplicity of those topics, how much to spend on activities, building maintenance, color of carpets, etc. Most will appreciate that those who qualify as "elders" Biblically, will also be capable of making those decisions in a way that benefits the majority in the congregation, even though it's not perfect, and no decision will be right for all members. Some of the decisions will be compromises, some will be about process, and very mundane things. But some will be about teachings, and it's likely that new things will be learned, and questions will be asked that make persons rethink something that might have been taught a different way than before. I hope you can see that, even with JWs out of the picture, you could probably accept this entire situation as a possible, and even normal, Christian congregation. So now we take it a step further: The excitement and joy in this congregation of 40 soon becomes 80 and 160 as more and more share in Jesus' command to make disciples. They are now spread over 100's of miles, and need 4 congregations. This turns to 400 miles and 20 congregations. We would expect that some of the qualified elders would be chosen and invited to give talks and instruction in some of the other congregations? News of congregation events and experiences in one congregation might want to be shared to build up those in another congregation? Perhaps a newsletter is in order that's shared among all 20 congregations? Perhaps even some of the more successful methods of making disciples could be shared? And these 20 congregations might find it nice to have a chance to gather together will all 20 congregations of those related to them in the faith on special occasions. It will soon be useful, perhaps necessary, to have certain members of these congregations specifically involved in (assigned to) tasks related to coordination, writing, topics for sermons, administration duties, and some assurances that their doctrines are being "double-checked" against the Bible so that one congregation is not teaching something that another congregation would find unbiblical or even offensive. The doctrine checking would no doubt go to those elders most experienced at teaching and preaching and who had experience visiting multiple congregations. I believe that most of these ideas would not be offensive to you, when you think of how naturally they occur in various denominations all around the world. With JWs, a large body of doctrine has been built up, and remodeled, over the last 135 years or so. Those elders who act as elders of multiple congregations instead of just one local congregation will see themselves as the "guardians of doctrine." (The term, as used by Brother Jackson, sounds too much like a protector of traditional doctrines, but I think he truly meant it as guarding the doctrines so that they remain consistent with the Biblical "constitution" even when amendments are necessary.) What I'm saying is that it is quite natural that we have a GB function. And I don't think it starts with how much they think of themselves, but the very high regard they have for the unique value of the doctrines in their care that makes them accept that they are handling a very special function. So they have looked for a Biblical way to highlight that value and ended up creating a doctrine (in 2012) about the GB being the same as the FDS, not even including the "Helpers." It's based on the one parable that highlights the way spiritual food is distributed to the entire congregation. (It appears they also considered using the parable of the loaves and fishes, but this one has too many participants in the distribution.) To me this is a doctrine that will likely need to be adjusted back to what it was from about 1928 to 2011, where the few in charge of writing and publishing doctrines only spoke of themselves as "representing" the rest of the FDS. Their function would be the same, however, with or without their current explanation of the FDS parable. But that doctrine itself has caused some problems in that it tends to highlight the importance of 8 persons when the entire focus should be on the overall value of the unique set of doctrines. I don't think any of us should have a problem, however, with the idea that a small group of elders who are seen as "faithful and discreet slaves" would perform many of the same functions as the Governing Body are now forming. They are elders, and they deserve respect. Most JWs think the GB are the equivalent of the FDS, so this is not a problem anyway. But I'm sure there are many who have already put this idea to the test, and it makes sense to them. Many others have put this idea to the test and they realize, as I said above, that it could be a doctrinal mistake, but would have no great effect one way or another if the doctrine were changes. (In fact, I have found long-time Witnesses who thought this had been the doctrine for nearly 50 years, since the GB arrangement.) Also, those of us who have remained JWs, even after questioning that particular doctrine, do so because we believe the majority of the basic doctrines being "distributed" are correct, otherwise there are other denominations to look into. My own criteria, based on the Bible, immediately knocks out just about all the other denominational options at a glance. I don't see the same huge difference. Paul spoke of the removal of the gifts of inspiration. So even if they were inspired, we should not expect inspiration to take the same form today. Also, the GB model themselves, not directly on the apostles, but on the Council of elders at Jerusalem, which was best known for correcting a big mistake that came right out of their own congregation, from under their noses, which Peter and James (not an apostle) had even hypocritically participated in. Also, even the apostles were not "inspired" at all times. No one goes to the door with the overlapping generations message. Our message is that the time for this wicked system is short, and that the Kingdom offers the perfect solution, so lift your heads up and rejoice, and if you really want to do some good, join us in spreading that same message to others. Haven't seen that invoked for a while. It gets drummed up by exJWs from some old 1950s Watchtower. It's been used again since 2000, but it's in the context of preparation for persecution as a possible way to be "cautious as serpents yet innocent as doves." The basic idea is not to give more information than a person is entitled to, especially so as not to put our brothers and sisters unnecessarily in harm's way. Yes. I know the quote, and I've heard others like it. It's an imperfect statement made by an imperfect man. But the motivation from context is the idea (perhaps patronizing) that most of us are like children who need a lot of reassurance. A parent wants a child to show trust even though the parent knows that he or she will make mistakes. But because the motive of most parents is loving, those mistakes will rarely outweigh the value of a child's trust in the parent. A good shepherd will show love to the flock under their care as if they are like his "children." I'm not offended because I think the phrase was properly motivated.
  30. 5 points
    JW Insider

    JW OPPOSERS GROUPS

    That's true, but it would not attract as much attention. Rutherford had been a political marketer before following Russell/WT/Bible Students. This is why he would ADV/ADV/ADV. And why gimmicks like putting David and Abraham on a property deed were important to him. This is why he used the title "Judge." But I think it was Covington who figured out that he could do much better in the courts if we agreed to be recognized as a religion. Religious rights were easier to fight for than unspecified rights or civil rights of a group who would otherwise be seen only as "peddlers." Tresspassing laws were decidedly against peddlers, but the United States was being recognized in the twentieth century as much more amenable to a variety of religions, and we weren't the only religion asking for (and getting) expanded rights.
  31. 5 points
    Outta Here

    JW OPPOSERS GROUPS

    As vitriolic as the spiteful crticisms of apostate opposers are, there is a remarkable tide of recognition of the integrity of Jehovah's Witnesses, even among those who do not share our beliefs. Speaking of the voluntary stand of Jehovah's Witnesses against the oppressive demands of the Nazi and Fascist regimes in Germany and Italy this observation was recently made: "We owe it also to their sacrifice that there was the powerful push in civil society that gave birth to the European project and also the European Court of Human Rights" Guido Raimondi. President of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) 1 November 2015 – 5 May 2019 The views of other non-Witness dignitaries can be seen here.
  32. 5 points
    Any data that an organization keeps with respect to a policy or prior practice is always considered fair game in a lawsuit, because these lawsuits seek to find out whether the prior practice matched the stated "public policy." The claim, if one goes after an organization for damages, is that the practice has been different from the policy. For example, a particular city or jurisdiction claims that their policy is to always change the lead (Pb) pipes in all areas where the levels of lead reach a certain threshold, and they have kept data on all lead level complaints, and data on every area where they have changed pipes (or fought against changing the pipes). If the city is proud of their record, and wants to prove that their stated policy was honest, they would be happy to have this record made available to the courts. And even if the courts say that they only need it to determine the probability of organizational wrongdoing in one particular case, there is a chance that this document/database will be leaked, or that the knowledge of such a document/database will cause it to be requested for multiple future cases, for as long as it is still viable to sue the water district or organization. If the water district has done a commendable job, they might even be happy that the document/database gets leaked. They might even leak it themselves. Of course, no organization is perfect, and there will always be items in such a database that make organizations concerned, or even ashamed. The fact that over a thousand cases of abuse in the Australian Branch were NEVER reported to authorities, and that not even one was reported, produced powerful circumstantial evidence that there may have been pressure from somewhere to keep such crimes unreported. It may have shown that almost any excuse will be grasped at to keep such crimes unreported, even in areas where reporting is not only ethical, but mandatory. The Australian database was therefore very important to show a pattern, in the event that a new case would claim that such a pattern actually existed. The other concern, of course, is that, if the database cannot be redacted, that some well-known names of brothers at the highest levels of responsibility in the organization could be revealed, bringing shame on the organization, and the families of those brothers. The Australian database had two names, I'm told, that went to the very top of the Branch in Australia (still living), and one name that went to the very top of the US Branch (a person no longer alive who was moved around after accusations surfaced). If this is true, it would give a whole new dimension to why it is suspected that the US Branch will never release the US database.
  33. 5 points
    This is pretty sad. I think a lot of it had to do with the more Anglocentric makeup of the GB in past years. The motive of giving the appearance of unity is not a bad one. Our styles of dress reflect our unity of worship. It's nice to be able to drive through a neighborhood or even visit another city and recognize Witnesses from quite a distance away. But now, there is more concern for writing counsel that advises an entire world of customs. There is a need to generalize the counsel since every country gets the same counsel. A lot of people think that Rutherford started the no-beard policy as a control measure to make sure that the Russellite cult was weeded out from among the Bible Students. My great grandfather was among the Chicago Bible Students who had many beard-growers because they thought so highly of Russell, who wore a beard. He was well-known in Russell's circle of associates, but would not have "advanced" under Rutherford if he did not cut his beard.
  34. 5 points
    To me, 1 Tim 6:20 seems more related to the so-called knowledge that comes from inside the congregation, because this would be consistent with the prior context of 1 Timothy. The idea of falsely called wisdom from the outside is referred to especially in the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians, which @Outta Here referred to. Not that the idea is wrong, but bringing up 1 Tim 6:20 in the context of something that the JW Organization should be particularly good at seems wrong to me. That's because I believe it refers to something that SHOULD be a pet peeve of every Witness about a particular habit of the Watchtower writers that continues to get us in trouble. We very often, historically, have made claims about certain interpretations of the scriptures that are completely unnecessary, and which turn out to be things that we end up dropping when the contradictions to actual events or other scriptures become too untenable to stretch belief any further. I could relist every single teaching which has had to be updated to make this point. But each of those interpretations was treated as knowledge when it was taught. Even though they turned out to be false, and required updating. Just because we like to avoid the word false, and call it "refinements" or "increasing light" changes nothing about the falsehood of the previously called knowledge. But spiritual food does not have a shelf life. Those false teachings were never spiritual food to begin with. There has NEVER been a reason to turn a specific interpretation into "knowledge."
  35. 5 points
    I will start with this WT Society quote from
      Hello guest!
    : Tell him to stop and listen to the bird singing. Then ask him, "Who created the birds and taught them to sing?" God did this. God created heaven and earth and all living beings!He gives life. Here we see how publication speaking about one special ability, among many others, ability to learn. So, by this quote we see how animals have ability to learn, and that, in a direct way, personally from God! :)) Yes, this WT Society book is for children, but as simplified edition it could be for adults too. :)) Let's go to article named: “His Invisible Qualities Are Clearly Seen” Paul said, "[God] invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and deity, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, because they are distinguished by what is created, so that these people have no excuses" ( Romans 1:20 ). If we look closely at these words, we will be convinced that the Creator is like an artist who signed his masterpiece. - source:
      Hello guest!
    It is also interesting that in same Creative Day, God has made land animals and humans - together. For First Humans God was not given one Special Day and Separate Day for creating this The Crown of His Creation - humans. No, He made them in the same day. Are Humans the Only Bearers of God’s Image? Humans are not made with some special materials, but also from dust as animals. Also, Genesis not telling us about how in Paradise existed predators and prays. But how all living as Equal Creatures, with no Mastering from first Human above any of animal. They all had equal position in Paradise. To live and be happy. Only after the Flood we see how God speaking about huge change - Permission to kill animals for food: Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. Mastering over them in: The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. But something is also very interesting: And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Lifeblood of animals and of humans are on same Level before God! And next thing is interesting: “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. Why would God made covenant with Animals as the same with Human. Why if Animals have no Qualities that God gave, supposedly, only to Human? Why, if Animals have no brain, conscious, heart, ability as Humans? Humans are Unique in Degree but Not Kind. The capability differences between humans and other creatures seem finally to amount to differences of degree and not kind. The differences among creatures pertain to complexity. There are good reasons to believe humans share basic attributes with other creatures. - source:
      Hello guest!
    Obviously, we have a lot to learn about Animals as creatures made by God Himself. :))
  36. 5 points
    TrueTomHarley

    who is referred to here?

    Moreover, if they really wanted to pump everyone into fever pitch, as John charges they do, they would not have let 1Thess 5:2-3 go unmentioned during last week’s assigned Bible reading—the verse about “whenever they are crying ‘peace and security.’ They would have hyped it to the heavens. Instead, they let it pass unnoticed. I think they are sailing a “steady as she goes” course among treacherous waters, doing their best not to overhype nor underhype. I just don’t like to second-guess their every move. Everyone knows what a pain a back-seat driver is. I don’t want to be one. Does John want to go back to what he once was doing, reasoning that it is enough to know that the end is “out there somewhere?” This course I believe we are “not allowed” to take—not by the GB, but by Jesus, if we would prove ourselves faithful to him. Does John point to things he thinks the GB does wrong? (Does he ever!) I note how Miriam and Aaron began to speak against Moses on account of his Cushite wife—and how Jehovah really, really didn’t like that, and He let them hear about it. This was so even though Moses actually did have a Cushite wife. As much as it is good to roam history in the spirit of “he who does not know history is doomed to repeat it,” it is probably one of those things we are just going to have to accept that we do from time to time. The presumed motivation for so searching past publications is so that we do not yet again emerge with egg on our face when something doesn’t turn out as anticipated. I think it is fair to assume that we may—for the alternative is to forget all about “keeping on the watch”—the opposite shoal, which is even more dangerous than the one we are trying to navigate. To the extent that the intent is to appear “respectable” by never again having to backtrack on prior expectations, I think the intent is misguided, though certainly understandable. Paul was described as a “pest” who was leading a “sect.” Witnesses today can expect no more. Christians then were considered the “offscouring” of the earth. Witnesses today can expect no more. What we have on this site is multiple players trying to make the case that the doers are doing it wrong—overlooking the fact that in most cases they themselves are doing nothing. Witnesses just have to accept that it will be that way. Malcontents and renegades will pick up the same refrain as you-know-who, the one who “accuses our brothers day and night before our God.”
  37. 5 points
    My wife, Susan, sent me a link to this from the downstairs computer, of a woman reunited with her dog who somehow got into a shelter. If you want to distill three days of words, words, and more words, into one photograph ..... look at this one.
  38. 5 points
    Years ago an introductory convention talk featured Matthew 13:52 “...every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.” It wouldn’t all be new. It would be also plenty of the old. At seventy years of age, most of it will be old. It will be reminders and exhortations, encouragement and the relating of experiences. It will be new ways of looking at old things—the gem turned so that it is examined through a new facet. Since you are so very much out of harmony with the ones putting on the program, you will kick back at most of it. I mean, you are not exactly easy to satisfy.
  39. 5 points
    I don't know if this is really new, but I learned it's very important to love, and show love to one another because we as heck are going to need it in the future. And I'm talking about true love, the principled kind, not the sentimental kind.
  40. 4 points
    It can be learned. At Sheepandgoats U, there is a degree program on not responding to the ignoramuses. It is taught by a professor of impeccable qualtifications and sterling example - myself. Hesitate to sign up, perhaps put off by some examples that you have seen with your own eyes? Then consider a testimonial:
  41. 4 points
    I will truly miss you, James. Psalm 26
  42. 4 points
    Hmm. I fell right into that one. But, of course, I agree that it very easily happens to anyone who tries to go into the "times and seasons" arena, where even angels fear to tread. If persons take themselves too seriously, they will want to be seen as a prophet, in spite of a string of past failures. It's an interesting phenomenon. And yes, I agree that even Barbour, Russell, Rutherford, Woodworth, FWFranz, etc continued to believe in "times and seasons" that were the result of a string of failures. No need to repeat it all here. However, in favor of the Governing Body, I would say that they stopped trying to represent themselves as a "prophet." The last time I saw that phrase directly tied to the representatives of "the faithful and discreet slave" was back in 1971 and 1972, and this was undoubtedly part of FWFranz' promotion of his 1975 expectations. I have seen much more careful language around dates and a complete lack of predictions among this particular group of men making up the Governing Body. Dates are rarely emphasized at all compared to the 1975 era. I think it's a valid concern, for himself and those close to him. I don't think that anyone here has begun looking to the constellation Virgo and a few stray planets for the sign of the woman in Revelation 12, and I don't think anyone is seriously considering taking airplanes to Australia to ride out whatever plagues are left in God's quiver. But he is showing signs that should make all of us feel concern for him, and a desire to help him. This does not mean that the rest of us are all that mentally balanced ourselves. But I think we should all be sensitive to how certain phrases and ideas might reveal problems that might need to be dealt with. This might even be the same reason that the GB brings it up. To try to make sure people are aware of mental issues and how they sometimes reveal themselves. And, I think we all know from experience that there really is a correlation between those who claim to be of the anointed (in some congregations) and those in need of mental health assistance. I cringe a bit myself when it is sometimes pointed out just before the Memorial celebration, but this is probably the best time to be reminded, just before your kids or your Bible students decide to go ask Sister Talks-To-Herself-During-Meetings how she knows she is of the anointed. There are valid levels of concern about what constitutes "worship" but the Governing Body would likely consider anyone who wants to worship them to be either apostate or mentally ill. It would go against clear counsel by the Governing Body themselves. And the only ones who would obey without question are those who are exaggerating or misinterpreting the Bible's counsel to obey those taking the lead. The GB does not ask people to simply obey without question. Obedience is always in the context of knowing which reminders coming from the GB are repetitions of counsel found in the Bible. Another level of obedience is considered in the context of unknown circumstances ahead when it may be necessary to humbly follow instructions from elders or those in the lead. We won't always be able to understand, or we might even disagree, but we will humbly follow along so that we don't end up creating worse circumstances for everyone. If a coach thinks a certain move is best for a strategic football play, then even if you think you know a better play, you'd best work with the team, or else your own ideas will just ruin the play altogether. It's easy to exaggerate quotes about obedience and think they mean something they don't.
  43. 4 points
    It is funny that JWs say that the CCJW in no part of the world. BUT, then when CSA is mentioned JWs say, yes but it's everywhere in the world.
  44. 4 points
    If there has been kickback on manipulation and ‘control’ charges, and if there has been kickback on ‘flip-flopping’ charges, then I would like to see kickback on charges that Witnesses ‘cover up’ child sexual abuse. A good place to start is by pointing out that leaving reporting up to the involved parties is not the same as ‘covering up.’ Instead, the Witness organization states that it “abhors child sexual abuse,” which, in combination with its reluctance to go there otherwise, is spun by determined enemies as though they love the stuff. Not all will do what reporter Elizabeth Chuck did and attribute it to a “penchant for privacy.” Why do they not respond in more detail? It may be that the sheer wickedness of the charge takes their breath away and makes them look like deer caught in the headlights. Yes, they know well the verse, “every sort of wicked thing will be lyingly said about you” but this—this is the wickedest thing of all! And the proactive arrangement started with such good intentions. Not so many years ago the notion of a religion “policing its own” was lauded as the ultimate in practicing what one preached. It wouldn’t be hard to do—to provide a brief defense of criticisms leveled at them. It might start with points such as: “Covering up” is not the same as leaving it to the digression of ones affected to report. There wouldn’t be anything to be accused of covering up had not the Witness organization practiced what almost nobody else did—policing its own. Countless persons are arrested with regard to child sexual abuse. Their religious affiliation or lack of is never reported. The reason that it is so with Witnesses is that they tried to do something about it among their own. Unlike virtually anywhere else, where the leaders of an organization are themselves the abusers, the leaders of the Witness community are accused of botching the handling of instances—bad, perhaps—history will judge—but nowhere near as bad as being the ones who commit it. That’s a few for starters. More could be added, such as The current “gold standard” of child sexual abuse to “go beyond the law” will inevitably cause you problems with those who, not surprisingly, expect you to abide by law. Child sexual abuse would appear to be the primary gross planetary product—30 years into all-out war against CSA and barely a dent has been made. Therefore efforts to prevent it ought to be given at least as much creedence as efforts to secure the barn door after the cows have fled. Nobody, but nobody, has done what the Witness organization has done, gathering every member in the world to consider detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse might occur so that parents, obviously the first line of defense, can be vigilant. This was done as part of the program of the 2017 Regional conventions. The reason that the greater world will never make inroads with regard to child sexual abuse it that it feeds with one hand what it is trying to punish with another. The TicTok app taking young people by storm has been described as a pedophile’s dream come true. Though it is parallel and thus not exactly the same thing, the 2020 NFL halftime show demonstrates that objectifying woman is the force that makes the world go round—the MeToo movement is doomed from the start. The matter of CSA does not go away. It is not being solved. Rather, each month brings some new revelation of how the very elements of this world keep it firmly entrenched as a societal ill. It’s intricate involvement with the Child Protective Service agencies recently was reviewed in a story I must have missed. “We have set up a system to sex traffic American children” said Newsweek in January 2018: And the latest scandal—pediatricians! “Sheds light on a problem that could rival priest scandals,” states an article extrapolating from a notorious case just how many there might be. And to think I got into a squabble with that nasty O’Mally, determined to put down the Caleb and Sophia video “Protect Your Children,” while she heralded one that specifically said that it was okay for a doctor to touch you in private areas. “Ask the young women of the U.S. Gymnastics Olympic team which video they think would have offered them more protection,” I told her. Just a few basic tenets of defense for those who would like to have some response to when workmates, schoolmates, or neighbors hit them over the head with what they just saw on TV. It doesn’t cover every tiny thing—just the general outline. The nature of critics everywhere is that they would like their complaints on center stage, to the exclusion of whatever else used to be there. Maybe its not a good idea to indulge them so. Maybe it’s enough to correct matters that need it, such as making it crystal clear to members that there is no reproach in reporting child sexual abuse to police, since the abuser has already brought about the reproach. Maybe it is enough to focus on creating an atmosphere where CSA is less likely to happen. Maybe. But sometimes you do wish there was more (or any) of a public response. I did like the WT attorney’s words at the reversal of the Montana verdict. “There are no winners in a case involving child abuse. ‘No child should ever be subjected to such a debased crime....Tragically, it happens, and when it does Jehovah's Witnesses follow the law. This is what the Montana Supreme Court has established.”
  45. 4 points
    "We "MUST" obey God as ruler rather than man." To me, Jesus' words here sound like more than just a general "standpoint" (or point of view by definition) that can change depending on the opinion/situation of the observer. I don't want to get into an endless semantic debate of what "standpoint" means to you or to me, since I may be misunderstanding your line of reasoning here. (I am assuming English is not your first language and so while you may have what you are thinking clear in your mind, it may be that articulating those thoughts may lose something in translation. It also may be that I am too slow to pick up on what your are trying to say at times - sorry ) I think of Jesus' statement here similarly to his statement at Matthew 22:21: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to caesar, but God's things to God." To me that was a clear command/directive that was to be in place at all times - more so, especially as long as Satan's systems is in place, along with the proviso of "relative" obedience as quoted above of "obeying God as Ruler rather than man." If, you prefer to think of both of these statements in terms of a principle, I would agree with you there as well. I think you answered your own question here. How so? You had mentioned that "Advice not going to higher education coming from "spiritual place" as God's instruction through the GB." Well, I think we have explored in great detail how the GB is not miraculously inspired, not infallible, are imperfect, make mistakes in both judgment and understanding... (Although we do recognize this "arrangement" as being from God - even as the nation of Israel had an imperfect "channel" including Moses and the Levitical priesthood that was to expound and teach the nation of Israel.) True, more often than is desirable, the leaders of the nation of Israel made mistakes and were even corrupt at times. But when was it ever acceptable to leave off worshipping Jehovah through his arrangement just because imperfect men didn't do what was expected of them? When would it have been OK for example, to join themselves to the false religions of surrounding nations that worshipped false Gods or even start their own religion - even though Israel's leaders were at times corrupt, immoral, apostate..?" This was Jehovah's arrangement for pure worship and everyone from the top down was accountable to him as to how they chose to use their freedom of choice. Even so, they had to respect his "arrangement" for pure worship - especially since it was to be found nowhere else. So back to the point at hand. You answered your own question by stating that "...counsel/advice/recommendation in this matter..." So we are not equating the counsel/advice/recommendation of the GB on par with the miraculously inspired commands and principles from Jesus Christ himself as head of the congregation. (i.e.. obey God as ruler rather than man...") I will qualify that by honestly acknowledging that some JW's act like they are in a cult (even though we are not) or even seem to worship an organization. But it is also honest to acknowledge that you will find such people in every religion - (especially one of the major ones in particular.) That seriously could be said of anyone who claims to worship God - including yourself. So should we all just throw our hands up and walk away? I don't see you doing that. We have at least, the Bible record which by faith, we can "see and hear" the same things the apostles did. I could also include modern-day examples as well, but I doubt you would WANT to accept any of them since you seem to have an agenda anyway. I am not interested in opening another door for endless debate regarding "what is truth?" John 18:38. Rather, I would suggest you do a word study on the word "truth," and see for yourself what it involves. A few verses to start you off: John 4:24 God is a spirit and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth. John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. John 17:17...your word is truth. 1 Tim. 2:4 ...and come to an accurate knowledge of the truth. John 18:37...I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is on the side of the truth listens to my voice."... As for the rest of your opinions regarding "truth" and how it changes or whatever... I really don't have time to get into that. Sorry. That is not to mean there is not a viable response, rather that it will take much more time that I feel will just be wasted. Fair enough if you prefer to view it that way. But this, as well as other examples, show that what has sometimes been viewed as "new light" has not proven true at all. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not feel mindless unquestioning obedience or acceptance of ongoing teachings is a mark of loyalty to God. It is a mark of loyalty to an imperfect uninspired organization. Still, I haven't come across any organization (religious or otherwise) that has MORE going for it. I believe there are many strong positives that set us apart - not perfect and lots of room for improvement, but I expect that will come - if gradually. After all, it has taken thousands of years to shed the blatantly false and God-dishounoring doctrines of nominal Christianity. If you feel your religion is better, let's hear about it and then we can scrutinize your beliefs as well - (instead of constantly sniping at us from the safety of a remote computer terminal with nothing positive to say.)
  46. 4 points
    Do some of your guys spend your life on the web, going from blog to blog / forum to forum ? How many JW / Ex JW 'sites' are there ? I'd rather go for a long walk in the countryside and see what God has created, myself, but each to their own
  47. 4 points
    If he's honest, he surely admits that he has caused people to view scripture differently than how Jesus taught it. Otherwise why would he give a talk in October 2014 where he said that a very well ingrained method of teaching the scriptures was about to change? And the basic reason for the change was because he said it didn't currently line up with the style that Jesus used when he taught. It was NOT the way of teaching that God approved. Somewhere between 100 and 200 doctrines changed, based on that talk he gave in 2014. They were changing because, as his theme scripture stated, the Governing Body was to become more faithful and discreet and follow Luke 10:21 which was tied to "how Jesus taught" and which said: "Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved." Now if he was changing 100 doctrines to become aligned with the teaching method Jehovah approved, then he must have believed that he was previously NOT following the teaching method that Jesus used: the method that Jehovah approved. If you don't believe this, then you might as well say that the change was made just so that things wouldn't seem stale. Of course, based on our history, it's always quite possible that some teachings have been currently been added which cause us to view scriptures differently from the way it was taught in Scripture itself. What caused us, for example, to decide that the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" were God and Christ when Russell and nearly a thousand years of Christian commentary had it right. Surely, you admit that the teaching in 1961 was wrong, and this is the reason it was changed in 1962. Up until a few weeks ago, we taught that the "locusts" of Joel 2 referred to Jehovah's Witnesses, and just now Brother Splane (
      Hello guest!
    ) has stated that the locusts refer to God's enemies, just as nearly 100 percent of Christendom's commentaries have been saying for hundreds of years. This teaching was already "clarified" in 1961. (
      Hello guest!
    ) and is still on the website as current in the "Revelation . . . Grand Climax" book. (
      Hello guest!
    ) Again, you might have guessed that Russell had already claimed that the locusts could not be God's people. D543 R362:3 R5527:1 Q23:7 So this is not really clarification at all. Russell teaches that the "superior authorities" are secular not God & Christ. Rutherford "clarifies" this (1929) to say they are God & Christ and not secular. Then in 1962, it is "clarified" again to say that it is secular and not God & Christ. Same with the locusts. Russell teaches that they cannot be God's people. Then the Watchtower "clarifies" that these locusts are God's people. Then Brother Splane "clarifies" that these locusts are not God's people. So far, the website only says the following. Brother David Splane clarified our understanding of the prophecy recorded in Joel chapter 2 describing a swarm of locusts. We look forward to studying this clarified understanding when it appears in The Watchtower. I think it's easy to see that this will clarify that the teaching was wrong up until a few weeks ago. A wrong teaching is always misleading. But it does not necessarily follow that the person teaching it wrong is "mentally diseased" as you said would be true of any who taught something misleading. Several would say that the overlapping generation teaching is wrong the way that Brother Splane explains it. You might say that anyone who teaches that this explanation is wrong is misleading by the teaching of Christ and God's words. But what if Brother Splane, next October, begins to agree that the way he explained it was wrong, and says that a new "clarified" teaching is now going to be taught? It seems like you would say that the persons who were right were misleading, and Brother Splane was not misleading when he was wrong.
  48. 4 points
    You haven’t been around long enough to discern how it works here: CMP takes the snap and hands off to JWI. JWI looks for a receiver. TTH is way way out there, but usually flubs the catch. JTR is also wide open, but he generally gets distracted in cursing out the coach. Melinda looks open. So is Aruana. JWI throws, hoping for the best. Allen Smith, wearing a Guy Fawkes mask so that you don’t know which one he is, intercepts. He charges headlong and bloodies anyone in his path. He gets ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct. After a few such plays, JWI punts. Witness takes the catch and insists that she should have had the ball all along. Sometimes agent JackRyan takes it instead and calls up to a dozen plays at once. Either of them look for receivers. Matthew 457845 is open. So is Shiwiiiiiii. So is Srecko (hehehe). So is JTR, who technically is on the other team, but 85% of the time it is impossible to tell. The thrower hesitates. All of these receivers are known to be distracted by Anna’s smiley face, and whenever that happens, they either miss the catch completely or run headlong into the goalposts. Hoping for the best, he or she throws anyway. Allen Smith, wearing a Guy Fawkes mask so that you don’t know which one he is, intercepts. He charges headlong and bloodies anyone in his path. He gets ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct. After a few rounds of this, the Librarian, that old hen, blows the play dead, and calls for another one. Admin puts his head in his hands and cries. He once supposed that web hosting would be his path to respectability. Understand now?
  49. 4 points
    Billy downvoted about a hundred or so of my posts in the last day or so, that I posted over the past year or so. I got copies of each post downvoted in my email, yesterday. I enjoyed reviewing what I had said. When he does that, does EVERYBODY get a copy of what he down votes, or just the person being down voted.? After about 70, I got bored, and realized how Adolph Hitler got people to agree with him, no matter what he said or did.. Billy appears to think EVERYTHING the Watchtower has ever said, or written, is the Word of God. This collective body of thought is only best guesses ... assuming the very best of motives, and no interest in keeping money and power, and building an Earthly empire of rank and privilege. beautiful buildings, and the adoration of many millions of Jehovah's Witnesses, and an unlimited expense account. My rough guess is that 85% of everything that they have ever said is self aggrandizing drivel, and flat wrong .... but then again, what I did learn from "The Truth" over the past 60 years ... that precious 15% ... has made my life better, and kept me from getting killed or incarcerated, and given me three magnificent children, so there is that! ...and of course, there is a great joy and satisfaction of actually know the REAL truth about who the Creator of the Universe is ! Holding to THAT Truth has allowed me to swim with sharks without being eaten alive. I think it was American Patriot Nathan Hale who said "My Country, right or wrong ... but my Country". I am inclined to share those sentiments about the truth, in "The Truth". What should I do ? ... wait until it's perfect? That does NOT include supporting or agreeing with the 85%, as BillytheKid46 does. ... and defending the indefensible.
  50. 4 points
    Yeah .... I had to give up bacon many years ago, because I just could not afford it ... or would not afford it because the price was so high ... and MANY foods escalated in price to the point I stopped buying them. But Golden Corral Buffet has a TREMENDOUS selection, and my wife and I are "Seniors", and if we get there before 4PM, we can get the dinner menu for the price of a "Senior Lunch/Early Bird Special". That means that for $9.00 apiece, we can feast like kings ... steak, spare ribs, giant shrimp prepared four different ways, pizza, fried chicken, chili, beef stew, clam chowder ( my favorite...), and before 4pm we get free soft drinks, as well. Every kind of desert you could want, and any kind of salads you could fix. Eight different kinds of fruit, and all the real, quality ice cream you can eat! I calculated that by eating one large meal a day, we can eat like kings for $10 a day apiece, which is less than the cost of groceries to eat half as well, AAAAAAND ... no preparation, OR dishes to wash! Even including the fuel cost to get there and back,, it's cheaper. ..and light years better!




×
×
  • 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.