The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AlanF

  hillary_step wrote:

  : I am much more interested in the psychology of these people than any arguments of scriptual minutiae, as it seems to me that their denail of the weight of evidence is borne, not from a conviction that the Bible is correct, but more from psychological patterns that they have to adhere to to survive.

  I agree with everything you wrote in this post.

  The psychology of cults has been studied extensively and is well understood. Emotional hooks get into the mind and the person has extreme difficulty letting go.

  Why do people who believe that crop circles are alien manifestations continue to believe even when hoaxers admit to many hoaxes and even demonstrate on camera how they did it? Why do some of these people even resort to violence against hoaxers who attempt to make these demonstrations? They've created a tiny cult for themselves which, for some odd reason, gives them comfort. Any attempt to take that comfort away results in denial of facts and even violence.

  Jehovah's Witnesses engage in massive denial of facts, and resort to the emotional violence of shunning when a member points out inconvenient facts.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  saki2fifty, you seem rather confused about your point of view. In just one post you stated two mutually exclusive things:

  : Am I viewing this thread from a neutral point of view? Absolutely...

  : And i have never positioned myself as being neutral.

  Which is it?

  AlanF
• 

  AnnOMaly

  T-wit said:

  Anne Omally (not on my staff by the way)

  ROFL! Of course not. Your position on the whole 607 deal is demonstrably false! It's been more than demonstrated here and months earlier when you posted the same propaganda elsewhere!
• 

  stevenyc

  AlanF and Hillary_step,

  In his post 211 Thirdwitness made an interesting statement which I found a perfect example of how a high control group effects its subjects rational.

  Yes, he used the works of others just as he did in showing there was no hellfire and God was not a Trinity etc. But it is irrlevant. Overcome my points. Not what Brother Russell has written. I'm sure you will now bring up the great Pyamid but the fact is that I don't believe in the Great Pyramid as being sacred and neither do JWs today. When we have seen something is wrong we willingly make the changes unlike Christendom's religions.

  It’s the final sentence, “When we have seen something is wrong we willingly make the changes unlike Christendom's religions.”
  
  I’m sure thirdwitness believes this statement. I’m also sure that thirdwitness is unaware of the implications of his statement: that he is permitted to make such a decleration of counter-doctrine when said doctrine is in error. Thirdwitness sees himself as making a decision of doctrinal change when in fact, it comes out of Brooklyn.
  
  He is unable to even voice that suggestion without reproof from the society. The only men in that organization able to make a change because of wrongful doctrine are the governing body.

  Its a perfect example how the rational of mind becomes confused with what is real and what is not when that mind is forbidden self control.

  Shame really.

  steve
• 

  Fisherman

  Ann, thanks for your response. Im only reading what the Scricpture says.According to the Bible the last king of Judah was Jehoiachin 2ki25:27,28 says so. not Zedkiak but YOU say ZEd. Scripture also says that he was let out offf prison and that he remained in babyl. gov Gedaliah's rule was before I think "..put his THRONE higher... compare "put on high even what is low" In fact verse 27 says JEhoi KIng of Judah. If this is so it unlinks from gentile times.

  I want you to consider another point about trampling down. POssibly, the trampling down occured when the Babyl looted the temple going into the Holy, and maybe the Most Holy? In any case Jerusalem was a colony of Babyl Zed not appointed by ungering or the HS but by Babyl, paying taxes to Babyl. What I mean is that all of these possible views being correct impacts on the certainty of 1914 and if the wt unlinks from this date, we shall see new interpretation od the verses that support it.

  I dont agree that will be trampled down only means inthe future but it can also mean a continuance UNTIL the gentile times are fulfiled.
• 

  hillary_step

  Saki,

  Am I viewing this thread from a neutral point of view? Absolutely...

  And i have never positioned myself as being neutral.

  I am sure that there must be a explanation to this apparent dichitomy. Perhaps you might elucidate.

  Giving the benefit of the doubt, I am pleased that you are taking a 'neutral viewpoint' as this will inevitably lead you to accept the conclusions of secular chronology over the dating of the first fall of Jerusalem, as it is only a non-neutral viewpoint that has ever questioned this in the first place. I would think that you are well on the way to enlightenment Saki, if you are truthful to your claims.

  Unless of course you believe that every scholar, every authority on the subject, and history itself is being manipulated by Statan?

  HS

  Alan, My apologies - I did not see that you had already bought these statements to Saki's attention.
• 

  hillary_step

  Steven,

  It’s the final sentence, “When we have seen something is wrong we willingly make the changes unlike Christendom's religions.”

  What I find so ironic about such a statement is that when the WTS does change its doctrines, it invariably changes them line with what 'Christendom' has preached for centuries. The judgment of the 'sheep and goats', being moved forward from 1918 to the final judgment being a spectacular example.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  AlanF

  stevenyc said:

  : The only men in that organization able to make a change because of wrongful doctrine are the governing body.

  Your post is dead on.

  You've made a statement of the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses -- that JWs must believe and act as if the Governing Body speaks God's mind on all subjects until such time as they revise God's mind.

  This doctrine is fundamental because almost anything else could change, and JWs would retain their present character. They could begin teaching the trinity and excuse the change as "new light". They would begin praying to Jesus if the GB called the new doctrine "new light".

  One of the few doctrines that would be extremely difficult to change is the 1914 chronology, because it is the basis for the Fundamental Doctrine. But the Society has some pretty wiley writers on its staff, and likely could pass off a major change in the 1914 nonsense about as easily as they did the "1914 generation" doctrine.

  AlanF
• 

  saki2fifty

  Nope, no real explanation for that "apparent dichotomy". You simply asked if I was viewing the thread with a neutral point of view, which I said yes. My next comment of "And i have never positioned myself as being neutral." was meant to say that I had never written that I was neutral prior to that same post of mine . And I even admit to say that I sided with TW. So yes, true contradiction in the writing.

  So how about this... I will try to excercise neutraility until I see that it becomes unbalanced.. at which point, I will naturally side with the society.

  Please continue... this is not about me.
• 

  DannyHaszard

  One of the few doctrines that would be extremely difficult to change is the 1914 chronology, because it is the basis for the Fundamental Doctrine. But the Society has some pretty wiley writers on its staff, and likely could pass off a major change in the 1914 nonsense about as easily as they did the "1914 generation" doctrine.

  AlanF

  Ergo,no 1914 then there can be no 1918 inspection and sealing of the 'anointed' so the entire wts doctrinal superstructure comes crashing down like a house of cards