Ann O'Maly

My Book of Bible Stories came out in 1978 and the pink Great Teacher book had been around for a few years. Didn't your family use these new 'spiritual provisions' from the 'slave class'?

The Royal Commission's full report can be read/downloaded at, http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/c2d1f1f5-a1f2-4241-82fb-978d072734bd/Report-of-Case-Study-No-29 I'm working through it now. Will the Org. humbly acknowledge and act on the Commission's findings? Let's hope so. It's a pity that 'Satan's world' has to chastise 'Jehovah's earthly organization.' But then, if it happened in Bible times, it can happen in modern times too, right?

I hear his Christmas album is outstanding!

Yes, you got it, Diakonos. Galatians (which is a mini-Romans) makes the same argument, leading up to the punchline: "You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus. ... Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise." - Galatians 3:26, 29; cf. Rom. 8:14, 17. Thus being "declared righteous for life" and "declared righteous as God's friend" is, in biblical salvation terms, a distinction without a difference.

Yes there are. And there are wrong choices no matter how we thought about them at the time. To help prevent the negativity about ourselves spiraling into feelings of worthlessness after we've messed up (which often happens when we have been raised and/or surrounded by people who expect near perfection of us and pick up on every real or perceived fault), accept that we will get things wrong and make idiots of ourselves at times... and that's OK. Making mistakes are opportunities to learn and grow - sometimes we learn more from getting things wrong than by doing everything right all the time. And as for the 'soy sauce' incident? A sense of humor would have gone a long way to get over it.

But what is 'the truth'? Biblically, 'truth' is applied to, Jesus - he is 'the truth' (John 14:6) God's spirit (John 14:17) God's word (John 17:17) Every denomination will have their own angle on those truths depending on which scriptural dots are joined up. But notice that 'the truth' is never applied in the Bible to a religion or its set of doctrines. If God and Christ wanted everybody on the exact same doctrinal page now, they could remove all the ambiguities. As it is, "For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known." - 1 Cor. 13:12 ... and this from the inspired apostle Paul! So every Christian has to do their best according to their own prayerful study and the conclusions based on them. Besides, the Organization has changed its mind countless times on what 'present truth' is, has it not? I suspect he means that Christian diversity was much more common and wide-reaching than the few notable examples which made it into the book of Acts suggest. So doesn't it show that, rather than Christianity starting off as somehow doctrinally pure and unified with later heresy and fragmentation, there were already scattered and diverse churches having their own take on the gospel, with Paul and subsequent Church Fathers then working to shape it into a 'catholic' orthodoxy? But many of those 'truths' hadn't been established yet. We get Paul hammering out matters of soteriology and the resurrection, as well as John's late gospel and corrective letters explaining Jesus' identity and nature. Early Christians would still be thrashing out these fundamental issues for centuries to come! No - even within the realms of logic and scripture they are massive involved topics. I suspect that, as well as the few examples in Acts being indicative of more commonplace happenings, they have in mind the contents of all the early Christian writings - not just those that were later canonized. Some of these minor issues would be relating to doctrine, though - like sources of meat, and who one should eat with, and when head coverings were appropriate, and so on. Not Christian at all. However, there are the precursors to that level of hostility toward heresy when those who hold to and/or teach a different perspective are considered a pariah, e.g. Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 John 7, 10. It's a short step to outright violence when cherished ideologies are at stake. Indeed. They thought the authorities' violent comeuppance would be later through a divine smiting. It's not an assumption. The issue of worshipping Christ WAS a hot potato with the earliest Christians. E.g. see Larry Hurtado's book Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity where he provides evidence leading to the opposite conclusion. Trinitarians would agree that there is no ambiguity in these texts. So why, they would ask, can't you see it? They use the same scriptural slap-downs as you have used with me regarding a seeming insensibility to 'Bible truths.'

Have you tried looking in the 2016 Yearbook on the website? Edit: Melinda just beat me to it!

I don't know how feasible that would be legally and without encroaching on the 1st amendment. If somebody was baptized as a minor and disfellowshipped as an adult, couldn't it be argued that, as an adult, that person ratified their earlier contract by willingly submitting to congregation rules, consenting to have data held on them (e.g. report slips), accepting privileges, etc?

Very well. The link relating to your quote has been removed from your post and inserted here: http://kristenfrihet.se/english/truechrist.htm P.S. I find it to be common courtesy that, when a direct quote is made, it is properly referenced. That you did not do. Consequently, it was inserted into your post for the purpose of this new thread and so readers could follow where you were coming from. The edit was clearly flagged up so readers could distinguish between your initial post and the insertion.

Again, this is such a massive, involved topic. It is not as scripturally (or linguistically and philosophically) black-and-white as you assume. Think: What is the 'soul' and has understanding about it changed over the time the Bible was compiled? Are the 'souls' of the 'anointed' immortal? What 'something' of an 'anointed' person is transformed after death or is 'resurrected' to heavenly life? When and under what circumstances is a soul's immortality granted, according to the Bible? Researching these questions, one will find that the Org. attacks the idea that the 'soul' is inherently or naturally immortal. But it seems to sidestep the idea many Christians hold to that immortality is something bestowed. Another huge debate among Christians is the interpretation of those 'hell fire' proof texts - should they be taken literally or figuratively? Regarding what is to be taken literally and figuratively in the Bible, are hermeneutic principles applied consistently? Do JWs believe homosexuality is wrong? Or Do JWs believe the issue is about homosexual practice? Lots of other Christian groups would accept homosexuals without condoning homosexual acts. This depends on what is meant by 'worship' and whether it is scriptural to 'worship' Jesus (another discussion in itself). The veneration of Mary follows from other premises which have to be assessed on their scriptural merits or otherwise. As for 'idols' - well, we can make idols of anything - even organizations and their leaders, if we are not careful - can we not? Another debate that would ensue from wider-ranging ethical questions. Is it OK to stand by and let your neighbor be bullied or killed? What about all the war-mongering and genocide in the OT? Actually it isn't when one begins to think beyond the superficial, beyond the ear-tickling soundbites. And the first century church was diverse. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html

So your reason for declaring this person a false Christian is that he doesn't hold to your own religious group's current interpretations of Scripture. Doesn't this strike you as a presumptuous position to take - especially since it is the 'Judge of all the earth' to make that final assessment? Did you try and understand his scriptural arguments that countered the JW Organization's then-held views (the article was written in 1998 and a lot of JW doctrine has changed since then)? This is one of the arguments the author counters. He also makes the valid point that the Org, has (and still has) a mix of righteous and wicked people within its congregations and outside of them, thereby suggesting that the harvest and weeding out work has not concluded. This reminds me of when I had discussions with evangelicals. Some of them consigned me to hell because I couldn't accept, on scriptural grounds, that Jesus was the second Person of the Trinity. I asked them where it said in the Bible that I had to accept this specific doctrine in order to be saved. They couldn't point to any text. The converse is true, of course. If it was so necessary to pin down God's and Jesus' ontological relationship with each other, Bible texts would not be so ambiguous or have to be explained away by those in either camp. And if anyone really examines the subject in any depth, they will realize that Trinitarians have strong scriptural arguments in their favor. I'll have to break off my reply for now, but I'll come back to the rest of your post later ...

International convention? Albanian national dress? Yes, Librarian is a little grouchy today. And what happened to the middle lady's other leg? Maybe that's why the Albanians are propping her up.

Really? JWs' 'biblical truths' change all the time. How can you be sure that what JWs pronounce as biblical truth today won't be pronounced as biblical falsehood tomorrow?

Estimation based on logic and data.

Maybe we are not reading the same stuff because what comes out clearly in it is his Christian faith and his respect for biblical and historical truth. EDIT: This part of the discussion has been given its own thread.

As I explained in a previous post: "... they simply 'did not know' when the Flood was coming until it was upon them and took them by surprise (this is the whole point of the illustration - like the Flood, Jesus' Parousia will be unpredictable). The NWT poorly renders the Greek as 'took no note' in this verse. As a sidebar, compare the changed rendering in the rNWT with that in the older NWT at John 17:3. The same word ginōskō used there is also used in Jesus' illustration, but in the latter instance, the antediluvians did not 'know' or 'come to know.'" God told Noah to build an ark because He was going to wipe everyone out; He didn't tell him when the Deluge would be until a week before. Not only that but, if you believe the Flood was global, 99% of the world's inhabitants would have been completely oblivious to what was going on in some plain in Mesopotamia.

And 'generation.'

For she keeps saying in her heart: ‘I sit as queen ... She's not been voted in yet.

How would you know? Are you familiar with his daily habits, deeds, his beliefs?

All what things occurring? We already discussed how the 'world conditions' Jesus mentioned were common to every era. We've also discussed how they have generally improved over the centuries. How long is 'a generation' anyway? What was Jesus' original intent and how would his audience have understood him back then? How do you know these past 102 years is what Jesus was referring to? You said an organization's great success in expanding worldwide, spreading the Bible's message in many hundreds of languages couldn't be done without God's blessing, backing and support. "No other efforts to organize global preaching have or will ever come anywhere close to achieving the kind of success the witnesses are having. The only explanation can be that they have Jehovahs backing, blessing and support! If not, it wouldn't be getting done! Period!" - Teresa Morales, 10/12/16 And yet here are the SDAs who have far surpassed JWs in this regard. If you do not think Jehovah is backing the more prosperous SDAs, then you likewise can't point to the JW organization's achievements as evidence for divine blessing, wouldn't you agree? *** w01 1/15 p. 17 par. 3 *** "Of course, the number of those associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses is not a criterion for determining if they enjoy divine favor; nor do statistics impress God." I think you have it backwards. Jesus said not to be misled by looking at common world conditions and using them to second-guess when his presence would be ("but the end is not yet" - Mt. 24:6). He said not to be misled by those who claimed Jesus was here ('but,' [paraphrasing] 'you just can't see him because he's away in the desert or hiding inside a room somewhere' - 24:23f.). He said that just like in Noah's day the people were living their lives unaware of when the Flood would come until it was upon them, so it would be with his presence - no one would know until it happened (24:37f.). If Jesus' presence could be predicted, why urge his disciples to keep on the watch all the time? Why not instead get them to wind their spiritual clocks and set the alarm for midnight October 2 or 4/5, 1914? (His original audience would be long dead anyway.)

Along with JW Insider, I can also confirm that he has remained a Christian believer. And yes, he wasn't upset because he "wasn't being heard as he would have liked to have been heard," but because he had found out what the Society had been teaching was demonstrably false, because he kept getting the brush-off from HQ, and because there was an underhanded campaign to vilify him in his JW community. ... ... You know, the usual way big organizations treat dissenters and whistleblowers.

Given that Jesus mentioned 'common' problems and conditions (and instructed his disciples not to be misled by those 'signs' - Matt. 24:4f.; also cp. v. 44), what specific changes in world conditions did Jesus point to that unequivocally pinpoint when the 'conclusion of the system of things' and the downfall of Satan and his demons would be? The only increase Jesus mentioned was the "increasing of lawlessness" (24:12). Statistically, crime rates fluctuate but mainly have been on a downward trend. As far as homicide goes, it was much more dangerous to live in centuries past. https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/ I doubt that men of old were ecologically aware like we are today, so did John of Patmos have 'ecological' ruining in mind? That's a very blanket statement. There are multiple issues - social, moral, economic, health, ecological, etc., etc. Some problems are fixed, some aren't or can't be at the moment, and some are being worked on. I think you are conflating Jesus' words with Peter's. There is no indication that the antediluvians were questioning Jesus' promised presence. Moreover, they simply 'did not know' when the Flood was coming until it was upon them and took them by surprise (this is the whole point of the illustration - like the Flood, Jesus' Parousia will be unpredictable). The NWT poorly renders the Greek as 'took no note' in this verse. As a sidebar, compare the changed rendering in the rNWT with that in the older NWT at John 17:3. The same word ginōskō used there is also used in Jesus' illustration, but in the latter instance, the antediluvians did not 'know' or 'come to know.' How do you account for the better success and growth of other Christian religions? For example, the JWs' distant cousins, the Seventh Day Adventists, have been around for about the same time and yet in 2014 they had over 18 million members, missions all over the world, preaching in over 900 languages, as well as health care ministries, educational programs and relief agencies. https://www.adventist.org/en/information/statistics/article/go/-/seventh-day-adventist-world-church-statistics-2014/ Has God been backing, blessing and supporting the SDA church too? Hard to do if you're half a world away from it. A more pertinent question for Christians is, "Biblically-speaking, what or who corresponds to the ark during the Gospel Age?" On the objective fact that the 'Gentile' governments are still in administration upon the everyday affairs of Planet Earth. See comments above. The whole world isn't in frenzied chaos. If you were living in Aleppo or similar, you might be forgiven for thinking so at the moment. Are you living in Aleppo? Or are you living peacefully in your home, able to go to the market, drive to work, openly worship at your KH and evangelize door-to-door? If so, it suggests a measure of community and governmental stability, does it not - the opposite of 'frenzy' and 'chaos'? What you are in effect saying is, as far as we and our lifespans are concerned, the term 'very short' is meaningless since it's only relative to the vast timescales of supernatural beings. Consequently, Satan's 'very short' time could yet run to thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions of years - a blink of an eye considering the billions of years he and our planet have existed. ... Which brings us full circle to my initial questions: How do you know you will see it in your lifetime? How do you know that you and your generation will be the one? So far you have presented various eisegetical perceptions and suppositions that do not match with observable reality.

Precisely! When I was looking at the Bible's teaching about Jesus' Return/Parousia/Coming with fresh eyes all those years ago, it was a 'slap head' moment being scripturally led to the same conclusions as you have outlined in your past few posts. You've explained it so well.

My assessment is purely based on what you have presented in answer to my question. Nothing more. Then how could Russell and Rutherford have been misled about Christ's presence, if they were also, not only part of His people, but claimed chosen leaders of His people? The attempts to mislead Russell were successful, since he died believing the wrong thing about Jesus' presence. If you are arguing that wrong beliefs don't separate a true and sincere believer from God's love, then surely the same standard would apply to other Christian churches and their mistaken beliefs, would it not? That's an assertion. What evidence do you have that this occurred in 1914? Alternative explanations center on social and political upheavals rather than invisible super-human causes. Regarding solutions, until there is a cataclysmic extra-terrestrial/super-human intervention, humans in the here-and-now will have to muddle through and find solutions of their own. How do you know what Satan thinks about publicity or if it aligns with Oscar Wilde's view?