A CIRCUIT OVERSEER STATES, "YOUR FAITH IS GARBAGE AND NEEDS TO BE TORN DOWN"

[Srecko Sostar]

Practice and tolerance of what is wrong, often times comes very quietly and imperceptibly.

If the premise is correct; the devil rules the world and seduces people. In that case; devil can and do every trickery to spoil what is true and right and justice/correct. In that light, WTJWORG are NOT IMMUNE on the same. Human History, or if you wish more precisely, Bible History, from Adam to nowadays proves this simple and cruel reality.

Every single free moral agent, free will human, proves one and single fact - all are corruptible, can be spoiled by bad and half true or by lie. 

To have the conviction that an individual or organization is in every respect correct and "having the truth" (religious or some other moral truth) is often the way to appear, to happen just the opposite. Perhaps not necessary on every particular issue. Problem that exist is in this; Organization ask from you, even demand from you to be loyal to all doctrines. They not allows your personal choice to "pick" what you feel as truth, but to carry all what they as Organization found to be The Truth.  

Sometimes, a certain Dilemma, before which we sometimes find ourselves, is the moment when we can be relieved of the trap of the deception in which we fall. But the liberation process of this kind does not always succeed. The fallacy, which is within us, provides a strong resistance and people around us (power of collective/group), who are loyal to the same deceit, working to encourage us to stay in the trap. 

[JOHN BUTLER]

10 hours ago, Anna said:

It really is not about rejecting the organization, it's because not everyone who has faith in God qualifies to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's about rejecting God's standards. For example, you may have faith in God, but believe the Trinity. Or you may have faith in God but see nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas, or practicing homosexuality, or living an immoral life style, or smoking......etc.

@Anna I cannot believe you said / wrote this. Are you drunk ?

I left the JW Org because of God's high standards. Because the GB and it's Org are going against God's high standards. 

Are you totally blind to the Child Abuse within JW Org ?

Are you blind to the shunning of people that leave the JW Org for the right reasons ? 

Are you blind to the lies / misuse of scriptures / changing of use of scriptures ?

Do you think JW's have a higher standard of morals than other people ? 

Are you so blinded by the smokescreen of hypocrisy in the JW Org ? 

Are you so dominated by those 8 men in charge and by the Elders that act as policemen ? 

Sorry Anna, I think that your comment is so naive. 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

 I cannot believe you said / wrote this. Are you drunk ?

John, You should bring it down a few notches. I should say up front that I am not a moderator but was given some admin privileges only to be able to move posts around and keep topics better organized.

So I'm not speaking as any kind of moderator, and I do not have (or condone) the use of those kinds of privileges to discipline or censure people. People can say just about anything they want about another person's beliefs here. But we shouldn't say just anything we want about the individual. We shouldn't presume to impute bad motives or a bad state of mind (as in drunkenness).

I didn't want to respond to a matter before hearing it, so I ended up watching the video. (I use the term "watching" loosely. Because it was YouTube, I was able to turn it up to 2x speed and then repeatedly click forward on the red line so skip about 3 seconds and then watch 3 seconds over and over. This gives the general idea of a 10 minute video in just over 2 minutes.)

I thought the person sounded angry, perhaps understandably, but also very haughty. I thought it interfered with his message, if not his credibility. Seems he and his wife heard a few statements and we have no idea if he is quoting them exactly or really putting them in context. We have to allow that people have different personalities and different views and reactions, but we can't give credit to an idea just because we agree, and then discredit another view (as naive and drunken, for example) just because we disagree.

Instead, we should deal with the subject matter raised, not the specific individual's motives and state of mind.

I also fail at this. Many of us do. But I hope you aren't upset that I point it out.

[JOHN BUTLER]

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

John, You should bring it down a few notches. I should say up front that I am not a moderator but was given some admin privileges only to be able to move posts around and keep topics better organized.

So I'm not speaking as any kind of moderator, and I do not have (or condone) the use of those kinds of privileges to discipline or censure people. People can say just about anything they want about another person's beliefs here. But we shouldn't say just anything they want about the individual. We shouldn't presume to impute bad motives or a bad state of mind (as in drunkenness).

I didn't want to respond to a matter before hearing it, so I ended up watching the video. (I use the term "watching" loosely. Because it was YouTube, I was able to turn it up to 2x speed and then repeatedly click forward on the red line so skip about 3 seconds and then watch 3 seconds over and over. This gives the general idea of a 10 minute video in just over 2 minutes.)

I thought the person sounded angry, perhaps understandably, but also very haughty. I thought it interfered with his message, if not his credibility. Seems he and his wife heard a few statements and we have no idea if he is quoting them exactly or really putting them in context. We have to allow that people have different personalities and different views and reactions, but we can't give credit to an idea just because we agree, and then discredit another view (as naive and drunken, for example) just because we disagree.

Instead, we should deal with the subject matter raised, not the specific individual's motives and state of mind.

I also fail at this. Many of us do. But I hope you aren't upset that I point it out.

@JW Insider Yes I'm upset that you choose to point it out. You are talking like an Elder. This isn't one of your Kingdom Halls so don't try to dominate me. 

Have you ever read Billy the Kid's comments, saying that I need medical attention ?  That's ok is it ? 

And TTH has mentioned my past situation causing me problems etc. 

My comment to Anna was about her comment not about the video. 

OK, let's get down to basics. what exactly was Anna saying about people that reject the JW Org ? 

She was saying that ex-JW's rejected God's standards. I'm an ex JW so does that include me ?

Anna was saying that ex JW's are not good enough to serve God. That is just what the GB and JW Org want people to believe. It's part of the brainwashing. It stops many JW's asking any questions. 

I was hurt by Anna's comment and I'm equally hurt by yours. But then you are both JW's so what more should I expect. 

I think TTH has said this is basically an open forum and we must all accept what others say. Things hurt me and I try to 'let it go by' (quoting Joe Cocker) but I don't expect people to talk down to me as if they are an Elder in a KH. 

Are you an elder ? Your name makes me think you are a 'spy' 'Insider'. Whistleblower.  But probably an Elder too.

Maybe you should stay in the 'Private Club' which is probs more 'soft' for you. 

If @admin thinks I'm out of line I'm sure they will give me a warning or ban me from the forum. 

[Witness]

I focused on “God’s standards”, but after reading the comment by Srecko and John, I realized I missed this part highlighted :

14 hours ago, Anna said:

It really is not about rejecting the organization, it's because not everyone who has faith in God qualifies to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's about rejecting God's standards.

Typically, JWs believe qualifying to be a JW is following God’s standards.    One must enter into a religion formulated by men to “qualify” for life, which is why a person becomes a Mormon, a Seventh Day Adventist or a Catholic.  They gather their flock and pin them down with rituals to be observed and interpretations called doctrine that must be adhered to.  When men rule over men, God’s standards which are based on Christ’s teachings, do not exist.  The captive treasure that the Watchtower uses for its unique validation as “the truth”, are the anointed ones.  Rev 20:7-9; 13:10

 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.  Col 2:8

The “elemental spiritual forces” that instigate the need of an earthly organization, a labeled religion to serve God, is sourced in Satan.   The man in the video who is being slandered because of his desire to put faith in the truths of the Bible, is beginning to wake up to this fact.   He has every reason to be angry.  

 

 

[JW Insider]

17 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Yes I'm upset that you choose to point it out. You are talking like an Elder. This isn't one of your Kingdom Halls so don't try to dominate me.

OK.

18 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Have you ever read Billy the Kid's comments, saying that I need medical attention ?  That's ok is it ? 

No it's not OK. I didn't happen to see that one, but I don't doubt you. I've seen similar from him. If you thought that what he said was unnecessarily harsh and judgmental, I hope you or someone else said something. Even if he would have felt like "elders" were trying to dominate him, he should know that such statements are as hurtful as more blatant types of bullying. It's the unnecessarily harsh judgment of the person's motives or state of mind that I think we should avoid.

20 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And TTH has mentioned my past situation causing me problems etc. 

I think I remember that from him -- a couple of times, in fact. I didn't take it as overly harsh but I was sensitive to your reaction. Sometimes we choose to reveal a portion of our background and experience in order to add credibility to our comments. In such cases, we legitimately open up that background itself to scrutiny and assumptions about its relevance, or import. BTK regularly tries to discredit my own experiences and background as either false or ill-motivated. He has that right, because I have given him that right in choosing to share my experiences as they relate to my opinions. I think that to some extent you open yourself up to criticism about your own views when you admit that they are based on experiences. If we don't like your opinions on a matter we might feel cornered by your first-hand knowledge of the issue, at least anecdotally. So our best defense is to say that your opinions are "tainted" by your experience instead of "informed" by your experience. It's a very weak response, but for those who come here to learn about people's experiences, the weakness of that kind of argument against the opinion/experiences probably becomes obvious to others.

46 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

OK, let's get down to basics. what exactly was Anna saying about people that reject the JW Org ?

I'll let her answer that. I admit there were some weaknesses in her argument, with respect to addressing your view of the organization, just as I suspect there were weaknesses in all of our responses. But I appreciate you bringing it back to the basics of what she was saying.

[Melinda Mills]

On 5/3/2019 at 8:13 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Since there appears to me to be nothing new here, I will not be watching the previous 9 videos, unless there are  good reasons to, and there does not appear to be any.

I won't watch the present nor the previous nine.  I agree there is nothing here.  

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Anna, and JWinsider are a couple.

Yikes.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

But, their tail is a dead giveaway.

Yikes, again.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

When I said you need meds, I heard that from people here before, like JAMES. However, you won’t see a censure from JWinsider lobbied against James Thomas Rook Jr.

This is pretty much correct as I remember it, too. It was JTR who made fun of you (while you were using a different name). It was about "meds" at least once, and he also made fun of you on another occasion in a similar vein. You called him out on it at the time, so I didn't see a need to. You actually called him out on it a second time a few months later and JTR denied that he had ever said what he actually had said. But again, you were already calling him out on it.

I called out John on his "drunk" reference, just as a reminder that these things sometimes escalate and someone ends up getting disciplined and then there are hurt feelings for a long time to come. And what's worse is that sometimes the escalations can get out of hand and people leave or get locked out of the forum. I hate to see such things.

But as I think about it, I was wrong to mention anything to John. It wasn't my place. And perhaps it was even a bit sexist of me to step in for Anna as if she couldn't respond for herself. As you say, it's not like I try to step in for every little thing. Even when you say things I don't like about me personally, I let about 90 percent of them go without mentioning anything. (In fact, when I tried to respond to about 30 percent of your claims in a recent thread, it was John who stepped in to censure both of us for unchristianlike fighting.)

So, @JOHN BUTLER I would like to apologize for involving myself in an argument that was not for me, in the first place. I have my own prejudices like everyone else, perhaps more than you. Some person's comments I hardly ever even read. So I could never be a fair moderator anyway.

[Space Merchant]

On 5/3/2019 at 8:13 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

How about a quick synopsis?

Don't think you will be getting any of that. Not even a refund on lost time. Aside from that, such videos are common whereas any can said something word of mouth and a flock of people will automatically believe it because they share the same disdain for someone or something.

There is stuff out there that tend to like us Unitarians to lizards or gov't sleeper agents or something weird. Non religiously, there is videos and terms deemed outlandish.

[JOHN BUTLER]

My goodness topic wars. (A bit like Robot Wars only funnier) 

We we are all totally off topic of course and we all have our own opinions.

@BillyTheKid46 I honestly don't know who is a Witness and who is an ex-Witness, or who was never a Witness at all

My opinion was that @JW Insider is still a Witness but working for both sides, a bit like Judas did. My feelings are that he/she thinks the JW Org as a whole has the 'truth' but that maybe the GB are going off track. 

As for @Anna , I'm totally confused. I thought she, I presume she is a she, was a Witness as I thought she wrote in the present time about her kingdom hall and elders. 

And you Billy, even you confuse me. Sometimes I think you are a Witness and other times I think you are a religious person but not a Witness.

Hence, everyone, I tell you this, once again. When I upvote or downvote or make reference to a comment, it is ONLY about that ONE comment.  One reason for that is I have a bad memory and cannot remember ten comments back, and a second reason is that a lot of the time,such as now, we are totally off topic anyway, so we cannot be commenting on the actual topic heading.

I do wish people would be their real selves, real names, real photos, etc. It would make my life so much easier. 

Good morning From me in Devon England at 9.30am. I am not a robot    

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

My opinion was that @JW Insider is still a Witness but working for both sides, a bit like Judas did. My feelings are that he/she thinks the JW Org as a whole has the 'truth' but that maybe the GB are going off track.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that @JW Insider works for both sides in a different sense. I like the way Paul put it:

• (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) . . .For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. 21 To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, in order to gain those without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others.

Early Christianity started out in the context of Judaism, which had become steeped in end-of-the-world eschatology, and the legalism of the Pharisees. But end-of-the-world eschatology, although dangerous to Christianity on its own (per Jesus), still naturally drew out crowds of people who sighed and groaned over the injustices of their world. They wanted a new heavens and a new earth, and they wanted it as soon as possible.

So early Christians would be mistaken to focus on eschatology, but many good Christians, desirous of a new heavens and new earth, would naturally come to Christianity through this path.

Jesus gave several illustrations showing why focusing on eschatology was so dangerous to true Christianity, and we have the words of Peter to explain how Christians must transform into those who would be the very same type of person they ought to be, whether the parousia came in their own lifetime, or whether it came 1,000 years after their own lifetime.

Another major focus of Jesus' illustrations and teaching was about legalism. Early Christianity was still steeped in Judaism, and still attempted to put Christians under law, even after it was recognized that the Judaic system didn't apply to gentiles.

Jesus' illustration in Matthew 24:45 of the unfaithful servants --who would beat their fellow slaves and try to lord it over them when the master was gone-- is a good illustration reminding us of the dangers of both eschatology AND the dangers of legalism/Pharisaism.

Paul played both sides of Pharisaism/legalism because he was accused of being an apostate from Judaism. So they asked him to pay for some legalistic customary preparations for the persons going with him to the Temple.

• (Acts 21:20-24) . . .but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law.

So rather than claiming that the GB have gone off track, I believe they are continually getting more and more ON track. I believe they naturally started partly off-track as would be expected with a very eschatological Russell and a very legalistic Rutherford. But all the while, it was the right kind of heart condition being attracted to and joining into the religion -- a religion with a greater focus on the type of person we ought to be for Jehovah, for ourselves and for one another. This was much like the form of Judaism that naturally made persons fit for transformation into Christianity. Legalistic Judaism was like a tutor leading to Christ. But we must still be transformed.

Paul played both sides in order to win more persons over to Christ. To Jews he became a Jew. To Greeks he became a Greek.

Still the core of the religion itself is one that does perhaps the best job of all religions in fighting the machinations of the Devil: avoiding taking one side over another in politics and war, pointing out the unchristian influences on supposedly Christian traditions, and pointing out the value of Christian morality, and unity of purpose in preaching, meeting together, etc. To me these are the most important things. Granted the Pharisaism still keeps us hanging on to rules (like turning in time so that our right hand and our left can distinguish different types of Christian service, and misuse of the two-witness rule so that mercy and protection of children has often been sacrificed, etc.). And eschatology will keep rearing its head now and then, too.

But these things are getting better over time, getting more on-track, not off-track. Pharisees don't want to be questioned, but we must all take our Christian duty and responsibility very seriously. We must question. We must make sure of all things. And we can only expect more questioning as more persons from all walks of life keep coming into the organization. I find that this forum is still a fair enough place to question and get feedback to help test whether those questions are on the right track.

[TrueTomHarley]

32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible. 20

That’s not very many people.