Jump to content
The World News Media


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PeterR

  1. TomHarley - I'm only referencing your terminology. Are you willing to address the actual issues raised? Or is it fair to assume that you're not interested in doing that, and are now just releasing "chaff and flare" to divert from those issues? I try to be extra patient online, because I really don't know what challenges people might be facing. I've largely ignored all your personal insults on this and other threads. But if you're just willfully distracting from the purpose of the discussion and the points raised then I'll stop wasting my time attempting to have any reasoned conversation with you.
  2. TomHarley - You can write whatever you like. But I'm not going to use your self-awarded designation of "True" when you post wild assertions that are far from true, with a view to trying to get people to buy into an argument resting on the what you've falsely asserted. If what you wrote isn't literal then you cannot rest your point of principle on it in the way that you did. It's just nonsense. The whole crux of some of these discussion is how honestly certain facts have been presented. You're writing that many JWs might be "nuts", but at least they're "100% honest". But if the ones in question are not 100% honest (and you've failed to respond to the evidence I've provided on that) then what you've got is "nuts" and "dishonest". You're trying to gloss over it. But it matters.
  3. You're saying that "living forever on a paradise earth" constitutes alternate facts? How bizarre. As anyone else can see I was referencing your ongoing litany of alternative facts, rather than your last post. But for you to label your own belief in paradise that way is curious.
  4. Yes, it is the quote I pull. Because it's key to your whole thought process in this passage.
  5. None? Ever? What basis is there to believe such a sweeping statement when the Bible says every man proves to be a liar. Most JW's are not malicious liars. I can accept that. But "none are liars"? Really? Are they somehow prevented from this sinful tendency by a 24/7 intervention of the holy spirit? When a JW does lie does that simply mean he wasn't really a JW? A bit like the Calvanists say that if one of the "saved elect" loses their faith then they were never really "saved elect" in the first place? It's known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy I believe. The convention video on 1975 misrepresents the facts. Is that truth? If it's not truth then what is it? Whether the misrepresentation was accidental I cannot say, but it's far from the only example.
  6. You brought up the convention video. I made that clear that I was commenting on that by writing "Before you say it wasn't in print, have you never seen the quote 'Now is not the time to be toying with Jesus' words about the day or the hour ...'? " You replied "This is absolutely incorrect. He was ignoring prevailing opinion at the time." and wrote that it was "not in Watchtower print" I demonstrated that it very much was in WT print - even in an extensive and detailed congregation study article. So if this brother bucked the trend and is now being publicly praised for doing so, he is being praised for thinking outside of what the WT study was teaching in the congregations. This is apparently praiseworthy in hindsight, and yet to do the same today will have you labelled as apostate. No need to respond, since I'm aware that there isn't any defense for this convention video. We'll just put it down to "alternative facts".
  7. If that's true he abruptly changed the subject, as you can see by following the thread. He certainly seemed to understand that I was talking about the convention video in my first comment about it.
  8. JWinsider - I wish it were possible to upvote your comments more than just the once. Several things you have written in this and related threads recently are very encouraging because they square directly with scripture and reason. You probably are aware that many students of the Bible have reached identical (or very similar) conclusions based on an unhindered reading of God's Word. Thank you. Bruceq - for sure it's an identifier, just as Jesus said it would be. He didn't actually say that it would identify a religion. He said it would identify people as Christians. Does that dilute Christianity, or negate the need for Christian association and activity? Not at all. But perhaps it should make us think about when the wheat and weeds are actually bundled according to Jesus' parables.
  9. I openly admit that I have no idea what you are now saying, nor why you are saying it. I'm not sure you do either. TrueTomHarley - do you value honesty at all? Is there a basis for a conversation here, or when confronted with reality is pulling a pin on a confusion grenade the only option for you? If so I have to say that it was pretty effective. In the meanwhile if anyone else has followed the exchange, and would like to make a reasoned comment on the matter, then I'd love to inhale a small whiff of sanity.
  10. If I was theoretically in "a room" at some point, you have no idea whereabouts at the table I might have been sitting TrueTomHarley. Nevertheless, it's not relevant to the points I'm making and I have no inclination to be baited by your throwing mud at the wall to see if anything sticks. You are constantly diverting from the scriptural aspect of the discussion and making it a personal matter, which although not surprising to me, ought to be a red flag to readers. This is a common tactic when a person has no scriptural or moral argument. Slander is a very strong accusation TrueTomHarley. And you throw it around like confetti? Please point to a post where I have slandered the GB or any other person, or calm down and show the strength of character to withdraw such a statement. When I cry, I cry like a grown man. And any grown man should cry if he sees people being hurt. But many of them don't, having had their hearts hardened to a "greater cause". But I can assure you that your personal comments here do not affect me emotionally in the slightest.
  11. That was quite an outpouring of speculation. Let me put one thing to rest. I have not personally been wronged in this matter. Neither has any of my family. I'm not sure why you would want to grant me a premise I never implied.
  12. Yes, that's probably how it works. He's probably also wanted for crimes against humanity. Thankfully the "overlapping generations" doctrine was the way he was eventually brought down. It's a bit like Al Capone and his taxes.
  13. Okay Tom. Let's test that. At the end of 1968 this brother would have been studying the following Watchtower in the congregation: *** w68 8/15 p. 494 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** I encourage you to examine it for yourself as if you were this brother at that time, and then see if you can sustain your response. There are too many highlights to choose from, but the one I was referring to in particular was this one: *** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. The entire article was 37 paragraphs of building anticipation for 1975. Please bear in mind that this was not "an opinion piece". This was a study article which all were expected to learn from and apply. So to say in this assembly video that this brother felt forewarned by what he had learned at the meetings is .... ? Ah, now you may get picky and say that this was a few years before 1975 and maybe the fervor in print had cooled off by then. In that case please show me the mitigating texts that this brother was supposed to have drawn from. In fact the KM was praising those who sold houses and left jobs right up to the year itself. And this brother says "some even went so far as to sell homes and give up jobs ...". Hmmmm. I know an elder who cuts out significant soundbites from study articles and sticks it on his wall as a reminder of "current truth". They will stay there for as long as it takes unless that truth is changed. So if this brother in the video had treated the Watchtower as seriously (and most did), then he would not have been "ignoring prevailing opinion at the time" as you suggest, but rather he would have been ignoring food from the FDS. If you don't care to look up the article and other relevant material in print at the time then I would be happy to supply more quotations. But I imagine that will suffice to at least have you reconsider your assertion that what I wrote "is absolutely incorrect". I personally
  14. Actually as it happens I tend to cook more often than my wife. And I also burn and over-season things from time to time. I beat neither myself nor my wife. But we know when to throw something out and order take-out instead. What we do not do is claim to our guests that our failure to repurpose God's ingredients correctly is part of his gift to us. By always attributing the ingredients to God, and always accepting that any repurposing is down to us, we don't stray into the territory of - your plated meal is totally from God ... um ... unless it gives you a funny tummy later, in which case it wasn't.
  15. Me too. But I thank him for the food that was available to make the meal. If my wife burns it or adds way too much salt I don't pretend that God did the cooking.
  16. Indeed, and I think I've acknowledged that. OK. But now he's saying how he would apply the letter of the law, rather than what's possible according to the laws and guidelines. I could give you references to the ks book, letters to BoE and CO's, notes/recordings from elder school, all of which you could take back to your elder and ask him about. I won't do it of course. I do not have any motivation to convince you that would prompt me to cross that line. And I suspect even if you saw the material with your own eyes you would simply say it was all hypothetical. But that would be to miss the point that measures are in place to enforce belief in this, or any other doctrine, if in someone's opinion the circumstances warrant it. And I know plenty of other people who are known to have quietly voiced that they don't accept the teaching, and they remain in good standing. I also know others who have paid a price for voicing a difference. As your elder says "it depends". Now he probably means it depends on what other factors there are in the case of the person, but it also depends on the elders themselves. Especially if a particular type of CO gets involved they have the latitude to DF someone for not believing in any unique teaching of JWs. I agree that there is no scriptural basis for it. Please don't get me started on this or the librarian will fork me off into another new topic. I'll just say in passing though that they are effectively putting up someone as a good example because he was ignoring what was in Watchtower print at the time in favor of what he understood from the Bible. When someone does that today guess what s/he gets labelled as. Before you say it wasn't in print, have you never seen the quote "Now is not the time to be toying with Jesus' words about the day or the hour ..."? There is a lot of truth to that. But what you may not be factoring in is that it takes two to tango. The "unrest" that results can very much depend on the listener rather than the speaker. You may have one congregation which is laid back enough to see this for what it is, and do nothing. But you may have another with some highly strung people who react very quickly to hearing anything that doesn't sound 100% "loyal" to them. And thus the wheels can be put in motion for some serious damage.
  17. Yes, fair enough. I do understand the issue. Just as a suggestion, I don't know whether it's possible just to embed a moderation note at the start of the first forked post with a standard line to say "This topic was split from another topic and was not started or given a title by this member." But maybe with better wording than mine. No problem if not. It's just an idea.
  18. If you admit that's the honest answer, then why do our publications say "Jesus evidently meant ..." and then go on to give a meaning that is outside all acceptable norms? The doctrine is made up, but then when published in print, or presented on JW TV and at assemblies, the spiritual food is said to come from Jehovah Himself. If the honest answer is that everyone admits we don't know, and that most seem to view it as opinion of the GB, then why promote it as something given by God? Do you not see any problem with that at all? Bible commentators for centuries have been able to draw a line between their own opinion, and the inspired Word of God. When a person fails to do that and attributes their own opinions to God, bad things result. It a sufficient number of good people recognized the problem then perhaps we could move past all the nonsense and actually have some unity based on reality.
  19. I guess "dabating with myself" (whatever that means) is more productive than trying to reason with some people.
  20. By the way, even though I didn't raise this topic, the answer to the title question is ... YES Will it happen? Not in the majority of cases. But the fact that it can and does happen should raise a red flag because some people are getting hurt.
  21. bruceq Sure it's a "minor matter" when a vulnerable person finds themselves in a room with three elders for not believing man-made doctrine. No doubt that's what the scripture means.
  22. In my opinion and experience there is an element of this going on. I don't believe it's motivated by corporate greed though. There are different motivators at work. If you want to start to understand what they are you can look at a local level and work up from there. There are many good brothers and sisters who do good deeds for no personal advancement. This is true of many people outside of the organization also (it would be wrong/silly to suggest otherwise), but most of us are primarily focused on what happens inside. At the same time there is a hierarchy. Technically nobody is "greater", but it's implicitly acknowledged that some "privileges" are greater than others. (All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. - Animal Farm) In recent years the ones being promoted up that hierarchy tend to be younger than they were a decade or two ago. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but most people who see what's going on from inside would say that loyalty is being valued over experience. If anyone cares to argue with that then please go ahead. Loyalty is a valuable quality when applied correctly and directed to the right party. Loyalty to Jehovah God and his Son is essential. But if the organization becomes interchangeably used with Jehovah, with no practical distinction then there is room for loyalty to become abused by those in authority. When organization becomes the thing that must be preserved at all costs, and individuals are expendable, bad things happen. The word "organization" never occurs in God's Word, and Jesus always stressed the value of individuals. That's not to say that being organized is a bad thing, but not if "unity" and "organization" trump "love". By all means I would prefer to support my point of view with specific examples. I could do that, but I won't in a public forum. It should not be necessary though. Those in the hierarchy know the facts even though they may not care to confront them. And for sure if things are going without problem in your corner of the world then I am happy for you. The question is whether the system itself is geared to serve the needs of an organization when it comes to the crunch, or to help individuals. Elders - what is the order of priority you have been given at school - 1) Jehovah's name, 2) the congregation, and 3) the individual. Anyone care to argue? In practice #1 & #2 actually becomes "the organization" and #3 remains as "the individual". And the scriptural support for this is .... ? See the problem? (I already know that certain people will not see a problem)
  23. I hadn't realized that people could create new topics under your name without your say so. But this is the second one for me now. So if anyone thinks I started this and haven't replied I can assure you I wasn't even aware that this topic existed until a couple of seconds ago.
  24. In trying to prove your conclusion, you are using a source which is already biased towards the conclusion you are trying to prove. And I explained why that would be the case based upon the timing of the quote. (The Insight book was published in 1988 BTW.) Do you really not understand, or are you trying to string this out now?
  • 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.