Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic? (page 10)

myelaine

sweetscholar,

" think about it. peace."

you should eat these words!

michelle

the reason they couldn't get in also is because it was too late to repent when the doors were shut closed by God Himself. but for DECADES Noah and his family church were building that ark and preaching. I understand your thing about "physical objects" and "abstractions", but the point that's clear is that that physical object, the Ark, represented the organized church arrangement of Noah and his family. what's the problem? I said it like 3 or 4 times already. you had to do whatever Noah and his family were doing. how do we know? cuz look at the end result for the people who DIDN'T join in with Noah during all those years of constructing the Ark, which was an act of faith and obedience, that "condemned the world", Hebrews 11. the Ark represented Jehovah's sanctified organization and arrangement at that time in history. in that general dispensation. and you want the Bible to be as bulky as 10 volume encyclopedia or something to spell out in minute detail all the time what is obvious to a blind monkey. it gets ridiculous after a while. OBVIOUSLY THOSE WHO DISSED AND REJECTE NOAH AND HIS WORK WERE LOST AND CONDEMNED BY GOD, MEANING THAT ANYONE WHO THEORETICALLY JOINED WITH NOAH AND HIS WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED BY GOD, IN THAT ARK, IN THAT ARRANGEMENT. got it this time? probably not. cuz you're obviously a Bible-rejector who does not WANT to see that God was working with "exclusivist" and perceived "cultic" situations in the Bible. everyone laughed and rejected Noah and his family as fanatical and weird and cultic and presumptous. boy were they wrong. the only thing that man learns from history is that man never learns from history. peace.

sweetscholar

Michelle, clam up please. your non-addressing of specifics is idiotic and typical. you're hung up on my tone but if I was an anti-JW with the same exact tone, you'd be cheering me on. or at the very least, not willing to criticize it. hypocrite.

ellderwho

EW: Sweetscholar what is/was the name of the organization that Jehovah was using after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Sweetscholar, its just a simple question.

AuldSoul

Things aren't brighter and brighter, that's the "so what?" If they were, you might have a point. Their dogma is no more "brighter and brighter" than the Pharisee's Talmud was enlightenment compared to the Mosaic Law.

Nevermind the fact that the "path of the righteous ones" isn't referring to enhanced understanding of truth or an organization at all. I bet you never carefully considered that Scripture in its paragraph context, did you? There's no shame if not. I was a serious WT student for more than 20 years and I had never done so.

Proverbs 4:14-19 — Into the path of the wicked ones do not enter, and do not walk straight on into the way of the bad ones. Shun it, do not pass along by it; turn aside from it, and pass along. For they do not sleep unless they do badness, and their sleep has been snatched away unless they cause someone to stumble. For they have fed themselves with the bread of wickedness, and the wine of acts of violence is what they drink. But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established. The way of the wicked ones is like the gloom; they have not known at what they keep stumbling.

As you know, there is a difference between reading the Bible and meditating on it. I had read this paragraph numerous times in the course of my regular Bible reading, but had never really meditated on it. It is clearly misapplied in the context the WTS uses it.

The path of individual righteous ones gets brighter in the sense that it is easier to avoid things that are causes for stumbling, not in the sense that there would be newly discovered rules of behavior handed down from a righteous organization to its underlings. An organization cannot be a righteous one, the path is not an organization, neither is the light an organization. So, exactly where in the context of this Scripture and into this proverbial word picture should we say the organization fits?

There is no place for God's organization in the headship arrangement.

1 Corinthians 11:3 — But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.

I'm hung up on this type of particular. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not a relationship only by the permission of a group of men who do not know me (i.e. the Governing Body). I know my owner's voice, and the voice of the Governing Body is a poor imitation at best.

I'm also hung up on the need to speak truth, to the best of my ability. If a Scripture says the whole congregation did something I choose not to indicate that they didn't. But that's just me. I'm hung up on details like staying true to what the Scriptures actually say when I talk about them and valuing their actual words over what a Catholic organization has to say about those words. I'm hung up on that.

In this post, I have only two questions for you that are not rhetorical:

(1) If the "faithful and discreet slave" has been correctly identified by Jehovah's Witnesses and they have already been appointed over Christ's belongings, why do they as a class have no authority over the Governing Body at all? (Matthew 24:45-47)
(2) What is the Scriptural basis for forming Judicial Committees that judge in place of the congregation? (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

On that second question, keep in mind that 1 Corinthians was written to the whole congregation.

I await what I hope will be your thoroughly considered reply.

AuldSoul

sweetscholar

those two examples, Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunech, actually support my position. but it's amazing how apostate Protestants and Korah-like independents think it supports theirs !!!!! utterly Adamic and braindead reasoning, and seeing only what you want to see, ignoring that he said to Philip "how can I without someone to TEACH me" (not just the Holy Spirit either). ahh, Philip was an Elder of the Church and a Leader. and that Ethiopian was reading Sacred Scripture, but apparently, wow, Scripture was not enough, he also "needed a teacher to guide him". how boot dat? Philip was part of what? THE TRUE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND ARRANGEMENT UNDER APOSTOLIC LEADERSHIP AT THE TIME. that was the "organization" and "arrangement" at the time. and Cornelius GOT NOWHERE, without Peter "to guide him", and who was Peter???? An Apostle and Elder and Leader of the church. and Cornelius needed more than just the Holy Spirit, but needed Peter and the Apostolic authority and oversight. and you guys use those two examples to support this loose hodge podge independent mind set? wow. no wonder Armageddon is coming. human nature is el stinko. people rejected Noah and his family for more or less the same reasons people reject JWs and the purity and authority involved. men never learn from history. but love to twist, nullifty, water down, and pervert Scripture. to their own destruction. you want Cornelius to support your view without any good backing. Cornelius JOINED IN WITH THE APOSTOLIC ARRANGEMENT, Peter having to teach and guide and direct him. with the Holy Spirit. not instead of it.

myelaine

dear sweetscholar,

you're not very nice AT ALL !!!

michelle

ellderwho

Philip was part of what? THE TRUE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND ARRANGEMENT UNDER APOSTOLIC LEADERSHIP AT THE TIME. that was the "organization" and "arrangement" at the time.

Okay and it continued to be called what? You see, you have no continuity of an organization from 70AD onward to this present day?

sweetscholar

the Way, the Christians, the Christian Church, or as their enemies called them "the sect of the Nazarenes", which was a cultic smear actually. but in every dispensation, God's servants, are Jehovah's witnesses. meaning the Lord's witnesses and servants. but specifically before 70 AD or even after, it's True Christian Church or Christians. hopefully that answers that. I doubt you asked your question in sincerity. but I answered you in sincerity. if what I said in any way is inaccurate, please point it out, chapter, verse, book, copyright, documentation, historical, linguistical, Biblical, archeological, etc. but yes, Biblically, they were the Christians, witnesses of Jesus and even "holy nation of Yahawah" (Isaiah and Peter), etc. that sort of thing. but the specific type of witnesses was "Christian Church". THE TRUE ONE. not the messed up chaos that is called "Christendom" which had its birth in 313 A.D. with Constantine. that's a counterfeit weed of poison and paganism and corruption. truth mixed with lies. I'm talking about pure unadulterated sanctified and separated Biblical Christians. free of paganism, worldliness, and corruption. not perfect, but way better than the garbage and "Lord Lord" in that day stuff we see all around us. again The True Christian Church. that was the Biblical tag for it. later.

seattleniceguy

sweetscholar,

Michelle, clam up please. your non-addressing of specifics is idiotic and typical. you're hung up on my tone but if I was an anti-JW with the same exact tone, you'd be cheering me on. or at the very least, not willing to criticize it. hypocrite.

LOL. The funny thing that everyone here knows except for you is that Michelle is one of the few people here that believes almost exactly as you do. You go ripping into one of the three or four people on this entire board that would probably be supportive of you. Nice work. :-)

SNG

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

Share this