Is it time for this forum to close its doors?

[Ann O'Maly]

18 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Ann is routinely cutting in her remarks. "I am amazed (but maybe I should not be)" she hurls at someone who has resisted her instruction on another thread.

Haha. You do not know my and Neil's history or the biting insults he's hurled my way in our time. We are both broad-shouldered and we understand each other. He evidently enjoys a good pummelling or he wouldn't keep coming back for more. 

[TrueTomHarley]

4 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Haha. You do not know my and Neil's history or the biting insults he's hurled my way in our time.

No I do not. Background knowledge always mitigates one's remarks. Online, one never has it. Maybe Bro Morris would caution about it for that reason, too.

[Srecko Sostar]

GB with WT Board of directors are afraid of Fifth Column. But they are already there and works. From the day first when WT has been established.

[Anna]

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

"Stick with what we have authorized. You'll be safe." The article just underlines AMIII's admonishment and warning that 'unauthorized' internet activity exposes JWs to "spiritual danger."

Is this forum and those like it GB authorized and approved? Of course not. 

And remember the Question Box from the km 9/07?

"Stick with what we have authorized."

There will always be those who love to research and openly discuss their views online, and thereby have to rationalize away the GB's clear counsel. I say GOOD! because this new article is another attempt at information control.

 

Well Ann, I've got news for you

No one on earth can make anyone do something that they don’t want to do. This has been proved throughout history, when even under duress, and with the threat of death, people have stood their ground.  As you know, only Jehovah can make people do what he wants, but he has only done so on extremely rare occasions under specific circumstances. He created us with a free will and wants us to use that free will. We are completely free to make choices in our lives. But the problem lies in people having a hard time accepting consequences. 

[Anna]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Within reason, there is nothing wrong with ad homenem attacks

The only problem with those is when used in the wrong setting they are distracting and take away from the real issue. It's annoying when the messenger is attacked, instead of the message.

[Srecko Sostar]

15 minutes ago, Anna said:

No one on earth can make anyone do something that they don’t want to do

You sure about this?  

When JW explaining to other people in preaching, for example,"how is possible that people doing so bad things, as killing in wars, when all people in fact want peace?, then JW provide explanation that all World are under influence of devil. That also means how one person under influence of devil can make also influence on other people and drag them into the violence with or without their deep, inner consent. Ap. Paul was under influence (did he want to renounce, deny Jesus willingly or not??) 

Do you separate sources of influence on, "earthly sources", and on "heavenly sources"? You said; "No one on earth..." Do you mean by that how people can not make no one else on earth to do something he don't want?? Because in continue you said; .... 

16 minutes ago, Anna said:

 Only Jehovah can make people do what he wants, but he has only done so on extremely rare occasions under specific circumstances.

Does this mean how only good spirits can make people to do something against their will?? You said; " Only JHVH can make people......" But,

when god JHVH ask angels who will go....  20"Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' And the LORD said to him, 'How?' 21"He said, 'I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and prevail also. Go and do so"- 2. Chron. 18

If you go to other Bible verses you can see how devil and demons can do exactly same thing - deceiving humans.

So devil have no such power??? Influence on human. Yes he have.

Your statement are contradictory to WT JWorg stand on this issue. More important, comment you gave are opposite to claim how JHVH gave humans "free will" to choose between two or more possibility, circumstances, paths of living. If "free will" is not possible to be always practice - actively or passively  by humans - then we have not free will , because you also said how JHVH has done exactly that in some rare occasion. Rare - as 1 in a lifetime - or periodically, if somebody using his power over you to exercise his "free will" over your free will, then in that rare moment you are losing your free will, even for a few seconds in your lifetime.     

Bible text make your statement questionable. But also history make weak such claim, belief. People can doing something against their will because they can be DECEIVED. If you are deceived then you are doing someone else's will not your. :))) Because you are without your full awareness and consciousness of what is happening in fact. Question of cognitive dissonance is just problem more that can make this situacion harder. But then we are on a doorstep when we are in moment to found the real truth or to go back to the image of the truth.  

[Melinda Mills]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Ap. Paul was under influence (did he want to renounce, deny Jesus willingly or not??) 

I am sure you meant apostle Peter.

"Only Jehovah can make people do what he wants, but he has only done so on extremely rare occasions under specific circumstances."  - Anna

Example:  Jehovah made Balaam bless Israel when he wanted to curse Israel. 

[Srecko Sostar]

16 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

I am sure you meant apostle Peter.

yes, yes, thanks for correction. All those names , who would know what is right one :))))

17 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

Example:  Jehovah made Balaam bless Israel when he wanted to curse Israel. 

as you see, we here have all sorts of examples :))  

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

When JW explaining to other people in preaching, for example,"how is possible that people doing so bad things, as killing in wars, when all people in fact want peace?, then JW provide explanation that all World are under influence of devil. That also means how one person under influence of devil can make also influence on other people and drag them into the violence with or without their deep, inner consent

But you know it’s no excuse to say “the devil made me!" (made me do something bad). So even though the whole world is under the influence of the devil, people can still chose to do the right thing .  But to analyze the statement you made; people want peace, but the problem is they want it on their terms. This is where the devil's influence comes into play. Do you think that such traits as pride, nationalism, racism, lack of self control etc. contribute to actual peace? Those are the devil's traits and the world is saturated with them. There will be no peace as long as people refuse to clothe themselves with “a Christ like personality”.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Ap. Paul was under influence (did he want to renounce, deny Jesus willingly or not??).......

But also history make weak such claim, belief. People can doing something against their will because they can be DECEIVED. If you are deceived then you are doing someone else's will not your. :))) Because you are without your full awareness and consciousness of what is happening in fact. Question of cognitive dissonance is just problem more that can make this situacion harder. But then we are on a doorstep when we are in moment to found the real truth or to go back to the image of the truth.  

We can take the concept of “free will” into the realms of philosophy, and it gets very complicated. I believe common sense triumphs over philosophy any day, in that it’s actually useful and practical! I am just talking about the good old classic free will, where I decide to do something regardless of whether I was deceived or guilted (or whatever) into it. In my opinion, one has accepted the true concept of free will when one also accepts the consequences of it, and quits blaming deception, guilt, cognitive dissonance, imperfection or “whatever” for making a particular decision.  Although you meant Peter (as @Melinda Mills pointed out) the apostle Paul did lament the effects of imperfection in Romans 7:15-21. However, he was not just washing his hands off the whole problem and blaming imperfection for his decisions if they were wrong, what he was doing was acknowledging that it was a frequent battle to do the right thing, and he pointed out that one can win that battle with God's help.

Peter denied Jesus 3 times. No one made him do it. He was not under Satan's influence. It was his own weakness, and fear of man, his imperfection, just like what Paul mentions, that caused him to fail for a few moments. It was still his choice at that moment though and I don't recall him putting the blame on anyone or anything else for that choice.

 

 

[Noble Berean]

22 hours ago, Anna said:

No, that is not at all what it means. The Church of Christ's Holly Slippers can claim legal ownership of their Bible discussion and Bible interpretation, as can the WT claim legal ownership of their Bible discussions and interpretation. But to mix the two together, or exchange them whereby it is unclear who says what, could constitute a legal breech of the other party.

Legally, the WT has a basis to protect their literature from the few embittered ones who manipulate it to mislead others. But most anti-JW websites I see are pretty focused on referencing WT literature exactly as it is...they have no desire to twist it. They completely disagree with the core views of JWs, so cheap tactics like manipulation/photoshoppery aren't necessary. And to falsify content would discredit their own cause.

I'm not arguing against the validity of copyright law, but copyright doesn't come from the Bible. It's a man-made law. The Bible doesn't come with copyrights. It was offered free to all by God, and no one can say "I own this book so don't use it in a way I don't like."

The org has made 2 statements that when combined are concerning:

1. It is the exclusive source of true spiritual food. 

2. Its content is copyrighted.

If the org truly believes both of these things, then they must believe they legally own true Bible discussion and interpretation. But they're actually blending the Bible and man-made laws to achieve this control. It feels icky. And they also feel they can police organic discussions on the internet. I'm sorry, but I can't help but see that as a control grab.

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And remember the Question Box from the km 9/07?

Quote

Does “the faithful and discreet slave” endorse independent groups of Witnesses who meet together to engage in Scriptural research or debate?—Matt. 24:45, 47.

No, it does not. ...

As you already mentioned, the "Kingdom Ministry" in September 2007 answered this question by saying: " 'the faithful and discreet slave' does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight."

I wonder how they could have known that for sure. Did they take a survey of 9,500 different persons? After all, in 2007 the "faithful and discreet slave" consisted of about 9,500 persons who all claimed to be part of that "faithful and discreet slave." And the Governing Body who also claimed to be part of that slave, claimed in 2007 that all the persons who were of the anointed remnant class were included in that slave class, not just the Governing Body. 

It was not until June 2009, that the Watchtower claimed that, even though all the anointed remnant were still part of that slave class, that only the Governing Body could represent them in "giving food at the proper time." To prove it, a scripture was quoted that had previously been used to prove exactly the opposite. The full context quoted should make it clear why this passage could be used to show that all the anointed remnant were part of the slave. But this time only the red portion of the passage was suggested for reading, and only the red, bolded, underlined portion below was actually quoted in the paragraphs:

• (1 Corinthians 12:14-13:3) 14 For, indeed, the body is made up not of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has arranged each of the body members just as he pleased. 19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 20 But now they are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” or again, the head cannot say to the feet, “I do not need you.” 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 whereas our attractive parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that had a lack, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all.

This next scripture, also used in the past to show that all the remnant were part of the "slave" class, was not quoted this time, although it says essentially the same thing:

• (Ephesians 2:19-22) 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, 20 and you have been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. 21 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. 22 In union with him you too are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit.

It was not until a talk in October 2012 and a Watchtower dated July 15, 2013 that the Governing Body finally claimed to be the "faithful and discreet slave" and changed the doctrine in a way that removed the rest of the remnant from the slave class.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Somewhat. It is because he knows the overall world is not Winnie-the-Pooh friendly toward Christian values. What is it with those who would disparage such counsel? They are exactly out of harmony with Scripture, in that they present the world as though it was.

I have the greatest respect for him, because he says what needs to be said, despite knowing that villains will beat him over the head with his own words and JTR will photoshop tight pants on him.

TTH:

Above you were talking about GB Bro. Anthony Morris III , and it makes me sad to think that YOU think that I would Photoshop tight pants onto Tight Pants Tony, or TPT, as he is affectionately referred to.

The image of that might send some Sisters into menopause, with hot flashes, and everything.