PeterR

Evidently they take place in places that you don't seem to be privy to. What more can I tell you? I assume you are perfectly aware that if I were an open book then I would simply be accused of betraying confidences. I fully acknowledge that these issues do not affect the majority of people in such a severe way. But Jesus was very careful to have us pay attention to individual sheep, not just what was happening to the majority. I hope I don't need to give you references for that. If you can demonstrate that the rules and regulations of the organization do not allow for the kind of treatment that I'm referring to to take place, then please go ahead. If you have served as an elder perhaps there is a non-explicit way we could conduct this conversation so as not to quote confidential information, but to still verify what is being said.

It's effectively self-referential. Do I need to explain that too? I'm not being facetious. I am happy to explain if you need me to.

You're in danger of begging the question Eoin. Who created that loose definition and why? It may be helpful to remember that the Insight article was written when they were reaching the outer limits of the current doctrine, and on the hunt for a new one. Therefore it is not surprising that we would find a loose definition at this point in time which would not constrain the options for the next understanding. There is nothing incorrect about the quote itself, precisely because it is so loose. But to treat it as if it were some sort of independent evidence that a far-fetched definition could be applied to Jesus words would surely be a mistake. Rather than look at loose wording provided by those who had already changed the teaching and were preparing for a further change, wouldn't a word study of the Greek word "genea" provide a reasonable guide to how far the word can be stretched?

Eoin For many people psychological pressure and torment hurts more than physical pain. You will no doubt make light of this because you are not on the receiving end, and your care for what is true has its limits. I have seen the effect of the GB tightening the screws that forces people to accept things that have no scriptural basis. There comes a point where vulnerable sheep begin doubting things that should not be doubted, because they have been falsely convinced that the whole thing comes as a package and they must believe the entire thing. Matt 18:6 - But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Mock these words if you must, but I tell the truth when I say that I have seen the effect of forced teachings that cause people to doubt. It threatens their personal faith, and it threatens their relationships with friends and family (social structure), and it threatens their sanity. And let's not beat around the bush here - quite clearly there are some one this forum who would enthusiastically take part in some form of physical burning stoning of the witches apostates if they felt it were sanctioned.

And if you were a good Catholic who didn't understand how the doctrine of torment in hell could be real, you might be on the receiving end of the same scriptures. "Do you know better than the Church Fathers? Shut up, obey, believe, and be happy while doing it." I'm sure it's been said more often than you are saying it bruceq, even though you are evidently trying for some sort of personal record. Heb 13:17 has the sense of being persuaded by, and then yielding to that persuasion. It's not encouraging gullibility. I encourage a study of the verse. In Phil 2:14 the "everything" is obviously not without qualification. Many people through history have suffered miserably by doing EVERYTHING that human religious authority demands without COMPLAINING or ARGUING. Most often they hurt others along the way, and like it or not this is a core issue when it comes to demanding absolute faith in the doctrine of men. Your misuse of scripture is nothing new. It's been going on for at least a couple of millenniums in order to control people. But God gave us a power of reason for a purpose. He clearly explains to us what true faith is, and draws a distinction between well-founded Christian faith and "blind faith".

And there is a post that I'm not going to respond to. Not now. Or ever. ... oh but I ... oh never mind ... I'll let it slide.

Odd how you appear to have quoted me prior to me even posting. Making later revisions to make things appear a different to what they actually were - I wonder where you learned that? Ah, I see. So Jesus was encouraging a kind of spiritual intelligence test whereby the willingness to suspend any power of reason would open you up to God's wisdom. It's not how I've traditionally understood the scripture. But I guess it works well for you. And all those who quietly find ways to politely ignore the overlapping generations teaching, no matter their level of spiritual maturity and qualifications in the congregation, I guess these too have not made the cut. Only people like you and TTH actually meet Jesus' requirements to receive unique revelation. I imagine that must feel quite special. It does leave us in a bit of a predicament though if that's what Jesus meant. It makes it impossible to challenge any doctrine from any religion if the bottom line is that only those that put their reason to one side would understand. Does Jehovah reveal things to those who are humble and beggers for the spirit? By all means. Does Jehovah demand that we accept things that have no basis in scripture and no reasonable foundation? Not at all.

It is in fact, a proper understanding of the illustration that exposes the fallacies of the doctrinal explanation. The illustration at least has value in that regard. I dare say you'd squeeze your version of it past an average 5 year old though. I can't argue with that. You might want to select one that doesn't ask too many questions.

That's a fair attempt to put it into your own words. What you are proposing is a "less stretched" version of the official doctrine. First of all if this was how it was applied then we would be allowing for a few years beyond 1914, rather than 50 or so. This is how it would fit into the evolution of the doctrine. I'm not going to dig out all the references, but a bottled history would look like: 1. in the 70's the "generation" had to be those who were old enough to see and comprehend the events of 1914. 2. since #1 didn't work out, later on it was decided that being born any time before 1914 would suffice 3. since #2 was looking shaky we took a break and detached the "generation" from a human lifespan altogether 4. since #3 didn't have the same sense of urgency a new formula was needed ... Now if they had gone with your version they could have moved from #2 to "... or born a few years after". This would have, according to your example, bought maybe 10 years, to be generous. That would have probably been insufficient. So they indeed took your model, but streeeetched it out to something that no longer fit your model. By using the same words as your model while glossing over the actual damage to the language Jesus used, we end up with a kind of fudged version of what you're proposing. What I believe it's important for you to note is the actual difference between your model, and the way it's being applied to a much longer time period. Yes, but then you would have switched the question from "who was the generation who lived through 911" to a different question altogether. It's effectively a verbal sleight of hand. If your audience isn't paying attention they don't notice when you make the switch. They know at the end that something's wrong, because that's not what "generation" means, but because each step you took sounded roughly okay and they didn't notice the step that made the switch, some of them end up accepting it. So see what you did there? You took the original clause of "witnessed the event of 911", and then you introduced a new clause "contemporary of the 2001 student". And rather than connect the two clauses together by an AND condition as the logic would demand, you connected them by an OR condition. Let me attempt to illustrate: I can define dolphins as "aquatic mammals of the family Delphinidae". I can expand my definition to say that dolphins can be defined as "aquatic mammals of the family Delphinidae" AND "animals that swim". But if I substitute an OR for that AND, then I open the door to say that "clown fish" are "dolphins". What you are doing is attaching an acceptable sub-clause to your "generation of 911", but then uncoupling it from the primary clause as if it can stand alone. But it cannot do so without doing damage to the sense of the primary clause.

So if this is the basis for your belief, then probably what you'll want to do is first of all find out which bible book your foundational scripture is in. (It's Exodus by the way.) Ex 1:6 - Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers and all that generation. It's not a complicated scripture. Let me ask you this. If you die in 2017 and all your brothers and all your generation also die at some point, what does "generation" mean if you don't impose any weirdness on the text? Do your precise birth and death times change the fundamental meaning of the word generation? Of course there are overlaps in a "generation". The only possible way for there not to be overlaps would be for each generation to have a batch of children be born at the same minute of a certain year, and die at a simultanous minute of a later year. But does your grandfather suddenly become part of your generation just because your life overlapped with him? Does that overlap of a few years between you and your brothers give latitude to distort the language to allow for President Kennedy to be of your generation even if your life overlapped with him?

You would be asking the wrong question Anna. You need to ask him whether someone could be disfellowshipped for NOT believing it after baptism. If he says no, he is either misinformed, forgetful, or lying. Now I grant you, not every elder will apply the letter of the law (although in a JC it's more likely because of the group dynamics). But that there are procedures in place to allow for DF'ing someone who refuses to believe in particular teachings is very real. Let me ask you Anna - if I could prove beyond doubt that this was true would you accept it, or would you continue to make light of it? If you are determined to see only what you want to see I have no agenda to change that. But I can assure you that I do not speak from a position of ignorance or partial information in this regard.

Wow. Wow. Wow Wow. Wow. And wow. Where did you hear this? - Is 1914 enthronement a doctrine or an opinion? - Is 1919 appoint of a FDS a doctrine or an opinion? Depending on how you answer, could you please explain the distinction between JW "doctrines" and "opinions". If you can do that I will return the favor by explaining it back to you thereafter, and also explaining why I feel it is so.