by slimboyfat 73 Replies latest jw friends
Pathetic Stephanus - why can't you just engage with the ideas I have put forward?
Because the only idea I've ever seen you put forth is that you are a lonely, self-righteous, hypocrite who gets his jollies from attacking people who actually had the guts to leave an org they knew was wrong. By WBTS definition, you are an apostate, yet you use the term to make yourself feel superior to your fellow posters - pathetic!
'Cos it winds you up.
LOL; its taken me the best part of a year to get used to your sense of humour SBF but alas I actually enjoy reading your posts as they often challenge and throw things open to debate.
I agree to an extent with what you say but lets be blunt here, the reason why many may not admit to viewing so called 'apostate literature' is that it tends to shut off the intended audience from the message being delivered. Which would have the most impact, literature taken directly from a source such as the watchtower or a well known so called apostate website? You cannot be disfellowshipped officially for quoting previous issues of the societies publications but you can be Dfed for reading apostate literature if you do not repent. In everything we need to consider the message, its audience and the intentions of the person delivering the message. Merry Christmas SBF and all the best for 2007. Gary
Maybe they had good teachers, if you know what I mean.
Warlock
I haven't listened to the recording you refer to, but I know that in my case, I did actually come across a lot of stuff myself before I started reading "apostate" writings.
For example, I'm pretty sure I still have a copy around of the essay I wrote of my own research about "parousia." Or the KM quote about '75: I heard that there was controversy over 1975 (but not any specific quote) and so I decided to do a search in the Watchtower Library and see what I could find. And guess what? I found that quote.
Of course, once I was convinced that the Watchtower was off-base, and I started reading critical materials, I found that they had already written about all the things I researched, and far more. But a lot of this stuff is actually out there for anyone with a brain and a little bit of time, even using exclusively Watchtower-approved research tools.
LOL SBF. I agree that people should be forthright about their sources and all that, but why is the lack thereof "cringeworthy" and the fact that those bastions of Bible knowledge who judged them, did not know the difference between a near and far demonstrative pronoun, not?
Hay!................. leave him alone and let him count his service time this way.
There no way after all the true stories............he will encounter here.....that he will have the same line of thinking after awile.
I had it all figured out at 24 too.
Namaste Slim
Gary, exactly the point I am trying to make:
I agree to an extent with what you say but lets be blunt here, the reason why many may not admit to viewing so called 'apostate literature' is that it tends to shut off the intended audience from the message being delivered. Which would have the most impact, literature taken directly from a source such as the watchtower or a well known so called apostate website?
Stephanus,
I think I am a lot less self-righteous now than when I believed what the Witnesses teach. To what extent I am still self-righteous is for others to judge - though perhaps more for persons who know me better that you do. I will not speculate on what in your own psyche prompts you to make personal judgements of a nature you are in no position to make.
I do not get "jollies" from trying to upset anyone. Have I ever upset you Stephanus? I really don't think so, but if I have I am sorry.
I think it is fun to put forward ideas that are contrary to the forum consensus because it may generate new ways of looking at things, and the way to provoke a response is often to express the point in the most colourful way. But not in a mallicious way, and I am always trying to make some serious point beneath the posture. I agree with "apostates" on the whole more than I do with Witnesses; and on the most fundamental issue, I agree the Witnesses do not have the truth. But I also think that many apostate criticisms of the Witnesses go over the top for various, often understandable, reasons. So I challenge those.
I know I am an "apostate" as the Witnesses understand that term - and I don't care. I am at the point in my understanding of the whole religion set-up where to submit myself to that categorization by the Witnesses would be to accord their whole system a credibility it simply does not deserve. So the people who have the "guts" to so brand themselves by various routes (I am talking only where the decision was their's to make of course, not about people who are forced out one way or another) have followed a different path than I would choose. But I don't think I am better than anyone who chooses their own solutions to various difficult situations.
Slim
Why is it Jehovah`s Witness`s will tell you about all thier hard earned research,when they are simply repeating WBT$ bullsh*t..Don`t they know thier not fooling anyone but themselves?...OUTLAW
JWs tell you they came to their conclusions based on their own research because that is what the Society has told them to do:
Here is the quote from the 3/15/98 WT, page 19, para 4. After discussing the difference between the WTS and the "faithful slave," the article says:
"In order to avoid misunderstandings, Jehovah's Witnesses try to be careful about how they express themselves. Instead of saying 'the Society teaches,' many Witnesses prefer to use such expressions as, 'the Bible says,' or, 'I understand the Bible to teach.' In this way they emphasize the personal decision that each Witness has made in accepting Bible teachings and also avoid giving the false impression that Witnesses are somehow bound to the dictates of some religious sect. "
So JWs don't say "the Society says ..." because the Society says not to say "the Society says ..." ;-)
LOL I always said to anyone who was interested that the apostate literature about the WTBTS was 100% more interesting than that mind numbing nonsense published by the Society. That in itself should say something. If we get excited over the exposure of a so called religious organization that claims to be the only God approved way then the religion is bogus. Spirituality should be exciting and if it is at all good then we should be eager to read it.
First of all, the scriptural deffinition of "apostate" is one who has abandoned the faith in Jesus Christ as God's only begotten Son who died for our sins; whereby we were given the gift of salvation. It's basically an abandonment of the Christian faith as revealed in the Gospels and Apostolic writings.
The Watchtower Society has taken the word and warped the deffinition into something completely different. They have reinvented the deffinition to include anyone who does not agree with every single doctrine and proclamation originating from Brooklyn.
This is an important distinction, because the Watchtower's deffinition of "apostate" is completely different from the New Testament's deffinition. This alone speaks volumes.
Within my own personal research, I have used not only books by ex-JWs, but also Christian scholars to "steer" me toward a basic direction whereby I then verify information by studying the WTS publications within certain areas of doctrine. I see no valid reason as to why I should tell a Witness that I referred to a book by David Reed or Don Cameron merely as a basic compass to steer me in my research. I personally, do not buy into all assertions made by any ex-JW, but always verify information myself. I can truthfully say that I did indeed find errors and inconsistencies within the Watchtower publications; because that's where they were printed.
