Could Someone Be Disfellowshipped For Not Believing In The "Overlapping Generation" JW Doctrine AFTER Being Baptized?

[PeterR]

5 hours ago, Anna said:

I think @TrueTomHarleywas talking about the brother who wanted to get married, in last weeks WT study, not about the 1975 brother in the video at the convention. If I'm not mistaken...

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.

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, PeterR said:

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.

Yes. Just about everything I've presented here about Matthew 24 (Mark 13 and Luke 21) actually came from various brothers in the Writing Department at Brooklyn Bethel between 1976 and 1982. On my own, I would not have thought about accepting the word of a Bible commentary. At least 4, probably 5, members of the Governing Body held similar views, doubting or rejecting 1914, and at least one more, including a member of the Governing Body that I worked with, held a different view of the "generation." One of his ideas was rejected outright ("the 1957 generation"), and one was finally accepted several years after he began promoting it (the generation of the anointed).  I know that a lot of people think of these variations in belief as a wicked form of apostasy, but that's primarily because of a current hierarchical system that isn't transparent about their own discussions and beliefs.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Not one witness in 200 understands ( and I just made up that statistic ...) that the way "new truth" is determined is that it is proposed by someone, and VOTED ON ... and there has to be a 66.66% majority to apostasize from the "Old Truth", or come up with a "new" idea.

In 1957, when Sputnik was circling the Earth ... it was proposed that this be viewed as one of the "signs in the heavens", but it did not get enough votes to become "new light".

YOU CANNOT VOTE ON TRUTH!

Something is either true ... or it's NOT!

I remember pieces of a movie I saw on TV many years ago ... I think the movie's setting years were somewhere around the 1300's ... Omar Sherif playing somebody was being asked if there REALLY was such a thing as witches.

He replied "I hope so ... because we burn at the stake about 16,000 a year, in Germany alone." (paraphrased 50 year old memory fragment).

I understand the relationship between these two apparently disjointed ideas ... I hope you do also.

When people start "making up" theology from NOTHING ... they also start collecting firewood for those who will not, and cannot believe it.

.

 

.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, PeterR said:

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.

Can this not be taken as 'imputing motive?' almost an ad hominem attack?

Alas, perhaps we were speaking past each other. If the thread is long, I skim before posting, and barely touch ground on certain posts, as you would if walking through a cow pasture. Apparently, I missed the change of topic. Sorry.

[PeterR]

 

9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Apparently, I missed the change of topic. Sorry.

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".

[TrueTomHarley]

2 minutes ago, PeterR said:

We'll just put it down to "alternative facts".

KellyAnne explained what she meant by that expression. The media went apoplectic when she seemingly applied it to photos that plainly showed whose inauguration crowd was greater...I swear, he does it just to bait them.

The 'alternative facts' that she was referring to are the facts she feels they should have been reporting but were not because they were consumed with back-biting and trivia. Lest there be any doubt that this was her meaning, her Twitter banner for a time showed her peering over Trump's shoulder as he signed important looking documents. Photoshopped in was the dialogue box: "I'm 50. He's 45."

It is the same here. Grousers that complain would do better to consider the 'alternative facts:' ...how, for example, a person has opportunity to live forever on a paradise earth, and that being the case, is it really the best use of their time to piss it all away over relatively minor things?

[PeterR]

10 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Grousers that complain would do better to consider the 'alternative facts:' ...how, for example, a person has opportunity to live forever on a paradise earth, and that being the case, is it really the best use of their time to piss it all away over relatively minor things?

"Relatively minor" to those who live in a bubble of alternative facts.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, PeterR said:

1 hour ago, PeterR said:

"Relatively minor" to those who live in a bubble of alternative facts.

 

Since the only alternative  facts I mentioned were the prospect of living forever on a paradise earth, is that, too, a misguided 'bubble' for you? If so, you would have saved everyone's time by cutting right to the chase.

[PeterR]

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Since the only alternative  facts I mentioned were the prospect of living forever on a paradise earth, is that, too, a misguided 'bubble' for you? If so, you would have saved everyone's time by cutting right to the chase.

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.

[Anna]

13 hours ago, PeterR said:

 

You brought up the convention video.

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".

I brought up the convention video. I also brought up the "marriage" issue from last weeks  WT study. Two different things. Now unless @TrueTomHarleyhas been to the convention, he might not know what the video was even about.

[PeterR]

9 hours ago, Anna said:

I brought up the convention video. I also brought up the "marriage" issue from last weeks  WT study. Two different things. Now unless @TrueTomHarleyhas been to the convention, he might not know what the video was even about.

Yep. You may be right about that Anna. He may not know what anything is about, but I still don't see why he could not have just explained that he lost the plot, and we could move on.  He has plenty of time for personal jibes and speculation about me, but apparently no time to quickly review a discussion and admit he was wrong. And why on earth does he quote me on threads and then refer to me in the third person as if he's playing to an audience? Things are obviously not quite right. I could speculate about that, but I won't.

My point on the video remains unaddressed then. I understand it's a slight side-topic at this point, but it's certainly pertinent to the question of what we are being expected to believe, and what the consequences might be for doing so or not doing so.

[TrueTomHarley]

19 hours ago, PeterR said:

You may be right about that Anna. He may not know what anything is about, but I still don't see why he could not have just explained that he lost the plot, and we could move on.  He has plenty of time for personal jibes and speculation about me, but apparently no time to quickly review a discussion and admit he was wrong.

In effect, is he not saying: "Why does TrueTom not apologize to me? Why does he not scroll back through the pages to uncover the stupid, self-absorbed blunder I have made in assuming that since I have seen the video, everyone has seen it, even though most opportunities to see it lie still in the future - further complicated by my insistence that he brought it up in the first place? Why did he roll his eyes and dismiss ME as a loon instead of patiently trying to uncover where I had gone off the rails?" He is touchy about his feelings.

He is not unlike @James Thomas Rook Jr., who, when you call him on anything, screams that you know NOTHING about him, how he has seen the BLOOD,  the SWEAT, the TEARS, has stared into the VERY ABYSS, has DANCED WITH THE DEVIL IN THE PALE MOONLIGHT, and so forth. The reason I know nothing about such things is that he has never said them. All he does is spray tommygun accusations like a terrorist does bullets, never doubting that his EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIENCE and UNIQUE INSIGHT justifies his outrageous actions.

None are unjustified attacks on anyone's character or motive, least of all, his countless slams of the GB. No. They are all FULLY JUSTIFIED!!! Why? Because HE HAS MADE THEM!!!

Far from criticizing his style and format, I admire it greatly, and emulate it whenever I can.