Death to the Pixies: A few questions, just for you...

AuldSoul

As an able apologist for JW dogma, I am wondering whether you give me answers with Scriptural backing for a few questions. In other words, whatever your answer is I would like Scriptures to support the answer. I hope that is not too much to ask.

(1) Was Charles Taze Russell ever the "faithful and wise steward" assigned to give people their "portion of meat in due season"?

(2) Was "the Society"—as distinguished from the "Bible Students" and the "association" in early publications—ever "the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season?"

(3) Is it a Scriptural requirement to confess any our sins to men, even "gross" sins?

(4) Is there Scriptural basis for the existence of Judicial Committees made up of elders?

(5) Is there Scriptural basis for requiring compliance with an unscriptural policy on pain of disfellowshipping?

(6) Is there basis for requiring that Judicial affairs be conducted in complete secrecy, and that no witness or recording device may be present if the accused wishes to have proof of what happened at the proceedings?

(7) Is there basis for teaching that a man who has been disfellowshipped or has left the organization is no longer the spiritual head of his family?

I tell you honestly, I don't particularly expect you to answer any of these. If you choose not to, I understand completely. However, I am demanding that you support your teachings from the Bible because your organization claims that its adherents are able to do so.

Your organization also claims that organizations that cannot prove the Scriptural basis for their teachings are false religions. I agree; any organization claiming to represent truth as explained in the Bible has that obligation. I felt very let down by the extensive variety of teachings that no Witness has ever been able to provide me Scriptural basis for. These are among the several dozen I have compiled. Can you?

If not, how is your leadership any better than the Pharisees of Jesus' day? Many of them were well intentioned, but they were operating under the errant assumption they had divine authority over the people and were responsible for making rules for them that went well beyond the Mosaic Law. Your leadership runs well beyond the law of the Christ in its rule-making. Will you account for their egregious behavior? Can you?

Curiously,
AuldSoul

stillAwitness

I knew Death to the Pixies was a bit off...

let's see if he accepts your challenge

DannyHaszard

8) Scriptural proof that Jesus had his second coming invisibly in 1914 the CORE dogma of the Watchtower

Super_Becka

I'm very interested to see if Death To The Pixies will step up and accept this challenge, these are some very interesting questions and I'm curious to see how he answers them.

-Becka :)

Low-Key Lysmith

I wonder if Death To The Pixies likes Frank Black's solo work, and if so, what is your favorite record. Do you prefer Frank Black alone to Frank Black and the Catholics?

moshe

second coming invisibly in 1914 the CORE dogma of the Watchtower

1914? I must have missed a book or two- I thought Russell , the founding president and editor of the Watchtower first said it happened in 1874!

a very good list!

Moshe

Death to the Pixies

These questions are of a hodge podge nature and are not tied to any comment I made, so I chuckle a bit :>)

Organizational procedures do not need explicit biblcal backing, nor is it possible in all aspects, as contexts of situations change throughout the years, note Bart Ehrman on this:

"Many ethical issues that are resolved by Christians.... are not referred to in scripture. I often have my students at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ask me about what the New Testament teaches about certain topics. Usually these topics that they're concerned about have to do with sex. What does the New Testament have to say about extramarital sex? Premarital sex? And the answer is, well, it says nothing at all. The New Testament doesn't deal with such issues explicitly because the New Testament was written in a different world from the world that we live in today.......The ethics that Christians follow today are ethics that are based, perhaps, on the New Testament or on other Christian traditions but are not explicitly dealt with in many cases in the New Testament. "

I would disagreee that this example is not mentioned in scripture, but he does lay out how the Church, when it comes to procedure, cannot necessarily support itself from scripture. Everything is not spelled out, nor is it reasonable to expect it that to be the case.

<<<(1) Was Charles Taze Russell ever the "faithful and wise steward" assigned to give people their "portion of meat in due season"?>>>

Reply: I believe that was held.

2 snipped for brevity and was irrelevent IMO.

3.) (3) Is it a Scriptural requirement to confess any our sins to men, even "gross" sins?

Reply: No, it is not stated I believe, but it is implied given how shunning occurs in scripture. I guess, in a 1st century setting one could wait for the APostle Paul to find out you have been immoral or apostasizing, and then be demonized forever by him in letters. Shout out to Hymenaeus..

(4) Is there Scriptural basis for the existence of Judicial Committees made up of elders?

Reply:No, in the scriptural example, it is much more embarrassing and painful.

(5) Is there Scriptural basis for requiring compliance with an unscriptural policy on pain of disfellowshipping?

Reply: No.

6) Is there basis for requiring that Judicial affairs be conducted in complete secrecy, and that no witness or recording device may be present if the accused wishes to have proof of what happened at the proceedings

Reply: Nope, the "how" of disfellowshipping is not explicitly laid out, but we know it happened. They also do not lay out the details for the "appeals" process either. A little common sense is needed for the Church in Modern times with regards to procedure. The important thing is you follow the teaching for how to keep the congregation clean. Jws, though with some disagreements from me, follow this.

(7) Is there basis for teaching that a man who has been disfellowshipped or has left the organization is no longer the spiritual head of his family?

Reply: Beautiful question my good man, no, you got me here :>)

Regards.

Death to the Pixies: A few questions, just for you...

Share this