Explaination?...

by Justice-One 20 Replies latest jw friends

  • DannyBloem
    DannyBloem
    I think that if you think on it you will understand why Justice-One has a very good question here.

    maybe you have a point,

    but it seems to be more some kind of word game....

    One of the traits of a high-control religion is to develop special meanings for words that are only understood in this special way within the group. It is a sectarianistic tactic designed to separate individuals from other people. The meaning of the word "inspired" doesn't change just because someone becomes a JW.

    They give a explaination how they use these words, so why would it not change the meaning on how they use it? Some words can have more meanings. My take is that you can find some definitions of these words in which it can be like that, even if you have to shift the definitions a bit as they maybe do....

  • garybuss
    garybuss


    "So Friends, hypothetically, and I repeat hypothetically, even if an angel were to come down here and land on this platform, today, at this moment, and to present something to us that didn't fit into the pattern of truth, what should we be ready to do? We should be ready to say, "Hold on there, that doesn't fit into the pattern, and I am not going to listen to it!", Yes even if it were one of Jehovah's angels." Minute 23, Beware Of The Voice Of Strangers, District Convention Of Jehovah's Witnesses, Selkirk, Manitoba, July 12, 2003


  • Justice-One
    Justice-One
    "So Friends, hypothetically, and I repeat hypothetically, even if an angel were to come down here and land on this platform, today, at this moment, and to present something to us that didn't fit into the pattern of truth, what should we be ready to do? We should be ready to say, "Hold on there, that doesn't fit into the pattern, and I am not going to listen to it!", Yes even if it were one of Jehovah's angels." Minute 23, Beware Of The Voice Of Strangers, District Convention Of Jehovah's Witnesses, Selkirk, Manitoba, July 12, 2003

    I'm sorry....but as my Dad would say "YOU GOTTA BE SHIT'IN ME!!!!"

    Sorry for the naughty word. But some things just have to be said. And if it's "one strike" so be it. LOL.

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul
    DannyBloem: but it seems to be more some kind of word game....

    I agree completely. And a game at which the WTS is an expert. The meaning of the word is the meaning of the word. If someone changes the meaning, they are altering language to suit their doctrine.

    If I say, for instance, that more than one group of sheep from (or "out of") more than one source becoming one flock under one shepherd means that two distinct groups of Christians would have two distinct destinations, I have actually changed the meaning of the language itself. (John 10:16)

    If I say that Jesus recommends taking matters of a serious nature to Christian congregation elders at any point, I am changing the meaning of the language itself. (Matthew 18:15-17)

    If I say that the phrase "reprove before all onlookers" means a public announcement of private correction, I am changing the meaning of the language. (1 Timothy 5:20)

    If I say that "men" means only those who are in a covenant relationship and excludes anyone who doesn't meet certain criteria, I am changing the meaning of the language. (1 Timothy 2:1-7)

    If I say that "In the beginning...the Word was a god" but also say that the Word was only godlike after being resurrected to heaven and was not a god at all in his prehuman existence, I am changing the meaning of language. (John 1:1; this point applies whether you use NWT or any other translation)

    If I say only a representative governing body of older men of Jerusalem reached the decision on what to send the congregations based on Acts 15:22, 23, but choose to ignore "together with the whole congregation" I am changing the meaning of the language.

    If I say doctrine can change based on Proverbs 4:18 while ignoring its contextual meaning, I am changing the meaning of the language to fit doctrine (and ignoring Galatians 1:6-9 in the process).

    I agree. It is a word game. For myself, it came down to choice of whether I speak English or whether I speak the "pure language" that twists and perverts the meanings of English words to suit doctrine. As soon as a chose English, I started to see the Bible in a whole new light.

    even if you have to shift the definitions a bit as they maybe do...

    From my perspective there is no "maybe" about it. And they don't shift the meanings a bit. They shove meanings around with bulldozers until the meanings fit their doctrine. Just like their treatment of dates. Just like their treatment of secularly established medical facts.

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

  • daniel-p
    daniel-p

    It's an issue of semantics, as all discussion of interpreting scripture inevitably becomes. They say "spirit directed" to intone supernatural direction - and of course to endow those who are close to the "spirit direction" with a god-like aura. THey can't say "inspired" because they have said several times in the past that they are not. Of course, if they have never said they wern't, they would certainly by now have said they were. Bastards.

  • garybuss
    garybuss


    "Jehovah sent good spirits, or righteous angels, to communicate with some humans before the Bible was completed. Since its completion, God's Word has provided the guidance humans need to serve Jehovah acceptably. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17; Hebrews 1:1, 2) He does not bypass his holy Word by giving messages to mediums. All such present-day messages from the spirit world come from wicked spirits." (Knowledge chap. 12 p. 112)

  • Justice-One
    Justice-One

    I just had a talk with my wife about this. She of course said that "spirit directed" was not the same as "inspired." I told her that words do actually have meaning and that if she looked up "inspired" she would find that it meant "spirit directed." Her response? - "I don't want to talk about this!" Yup, she's a good little JW all right.

  • Warlock
    Warlock

    If an angel actually came down and landed on the platform, you think that brother, or any brother, would be able to even talk? I doubt it. He would correct what the angel had to say? I doubt it.

    Everyone in that hall or convention site or what ever, would need a change of underwear. After, they got up off the floor, if they even could even stand back up.

    Warlock

  • sOOner
    sOOner

    I have been known to be in the spirits and it certainly inspired me

  • thecarpenter
    thecarpenter

    Here is the way I look at it. Directed and Inspired are two different words. (the following definition come from Merriam Webster online

    direct - 1 a obsolete : to write (a letter) to a person b : to mark with the name and address of the intended recipient c : to impart orally d : to adapt in expression so as to have particular applicability <arguments directed at the emotions>
    2 a : to regulate the activities or course of b : to carry out the organizing, energizing, and supervising of <direct a project> c : to dominate and determine the course of d : to train and lead performances of <direct a movie>
    3 : to cause to turn, move, or point undeviatingly or to follow a straight course <X-rays directed through the body>
    4 : to point, extend, or project in a specified line or course <direct the nozzle down>
    5 : to request or enjoin with authority <the judge directed the jury to acquit>
    6 : to show or point out the way for <signs directing us to the entrance>

    Inspire - 1 a : to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspirationb : to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on <was particularly inspired by the Romanticists> c : to spur on : IMPEL, MOTIVATE <threats don't necessarily inspire people to work> d : AFFECT <seeing the old room again inspired him with nostalgia>
    2 a archaic : to breathe or blow into or upon b archaic: to infuse (as life) by breathing
    3 a : to communicate to an agent supernaturally b : to draw forth or bring out <thoughts inspired by a visit to the cathedral>
    4 : INHALE 1
    5 a : BRING ABOUT, OCCASION <the book was inspired by his travels in the Far East> b : INCITE
    6 : to spread (rumor) by indirect means or through the agency of another

    When the watchtower speaks of not being inspired, they mean that an angel doesn't bring new revelation to them like the ancient writers of the bible. This would make them modern day prophets if a angel did speak with them (in a conventional sense of the word; bringing new revelations from God as the Mormons claim). If God put the thoughts in their heads for them to write down, that would also make them spirit inspired, modern day prophets of God. The only caveat to being a modern day prophet is that if anything proved to be false, it would show them up to be false prophets.

    The watchtower can claim spirit direction two primary way as far as I can see. One is by following the direction from the bible which has claims spirit inspiration (2 Tim 3:16) In following the direction from the bible, they can say they are spirit directed. Example: the bible says don't kill and they follow that direction and don't kill, therefore they are spirit directed.

    There are certain problems with this approach. Using this argument, I can also claim that I am spirit directed (as well as many religions including the Moonies) because I follow the direction of the bible on not killing. The second problem with this approach involves interpretation of a scripture. One religious group can interpret a scripture one way while another religious group can interpret it another way, both claiming spirit direction but in opposite directions (such as the blood issue). And sometimes we can see a particular group interpret something different ways over a time period. (flip-flopping as in organ transplants).

    A second way that the society claims spirit direction is that of angels interceding in their affairs, such as court victories, how the resources are used, appointment of elders and general running the organization. This comes from Acts 8:26 where a angel directed Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch or when the angel directed Peter to preach to the gentile Cornelius. The problem with this is that they admit that an angel doesn't talk with them. We also see that in the case of Jesus Cano, Leo Greenslee, appointment of corrupt brothers and so on, there was no angel interceding by revealing the corruption even when it was going on under their nose for years. They had to go by visual evidence (not invisible evidence like angels whispering in their ears) and word of mouth like everyone else (the Police and the courts find the invisible evidence unreliable )

    Bear in mind though, when Jehovah gave the warning about false prophets, he didn't make the distinction as to whether someone was spirit directed or spirit inspired. A false prophecy is a false prophecy.

    If I left out anything significant, please add to his post.

    It is important to have his clear in your head because too many friends have this quasi-inspired view in their heads and it sort of confuses a lot of people and emotionally holds them to captive to the bOrg.

    So what it comes down to is whether or not you think the religion teaches truth and also its past and current fruitage. (both of which are interesting topics)

    thecarpenter of the spirited directed class

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit