A look at 1975 (page 2)

willyloman

RR

I've always found you to be one of the more interesting posters here. Your perspective is unique. I, too, am curious to hear your response to the questions posed by onacruise. Please give us your take on that.

onacruse

RR, your response disappoints me.

I respectfully asked you twice to answer just 2 questions that would "enlighten" and "benefit" those of us (and there are many indeed!) who would like to know more about your Bible Student perspective, directly related to the topic that you started!

If you choose to run off in a tantrum, then, of course, that's your choice. But, if that is the way you choose to react, then I suggest that you have more or less confirmed what Dino said (though I don't fully agree with what he said, and I don't know Dino from Adam, just in case that is of any pertinence).

Hit-and-run doesn't work for me.

hillary_step

RR,

Your claim :

To have to scroll through hundreds of lewd and vulgat postings just to find something I can contribute too, that's what pains me.

Your post :

"On the way to the outhouses that same evening, while walking with one of the congregation's ministerial servants, a tall, impressive individual who hadn't seen me for at least eight years said, " You know Bruce," putting his arm around my shoulder and squeezing tightly, "if this old world doesn't come to an end in 1975, I'm going back to my old evil ways." Then he purposely lifted his leg and passed wind. It was loud and embarrassingly long. he laughted boisterously, still squeezing my shoulder. I don't think I will ever forget that awkward, yet funny encounter." - Why do only 144,000 go to heaven? Victimized, Ostracize, and Criticized" - page 3, Bruce Bainbridge. 1988.

I'm not about converting, I simply enlighten.

Given that the quoted section is the whole summation of your thread and opening post , I just wanted to thank you for posting that vulgar and very enlightening post. I feel....well...'simply' enlightened.

HS

RR

1) Was the sentiment of the Bible Students re: 1914 really all that much different than what you quoted above re: 1975?

Somewhat .... unlike the Governing Body, Russell wasn't so dogmatic about the date, or at least what he expected to happen. As early as 1900 he was warning his readers that things may not happen as expected. However with the War breaking out that year, it sort of "convinced" him that perhaps it would happen. After all there was never a war like WWI. Consider also that 1914 was not what was expected by the Witnesses in 1975. Russell's armageddon is not the JW armageddon. It wasn't a total destruction of this system of things with ONLY Bible Students surviving. Armageddon was simply a war against the systems. The Lord returned in 1874, which instituted the 1,000 year reign. He bel;ieved the harvest would be 40 years, 1874 to 1914, by 1914 the saints would be glorified, Israel fully restored, and the mediatorial reign beginning. Were there disappointment? Sure, there were those who believed they were going home by 1914. However Russell NEVER believed in a rapture. Unlike 1975, BIble Students didn't sell their homes and property.

As to your question? No, I don't think the sentiments were the same as in 1975. This was a different time period. People were just generally religious. Most of the ones who became BIble Students came from from devout Christian background. Reading the early 'Towers you would see more emphasis on Jesus and Character development.

2) Were the disappointments, and consequent (and understandable) anger, of the Bible Students after 1925 really all that much different?

You would have to ask them. Remember the split happened in 1917, most of the Bible Students left by 1925. 1925 was not a Russell date it was a Rutherford date and he even admitted with regards 1915 "I made an ass of myself."

RR

onacruse

RR, before I have time to fully consider your response, I want to thank you for following up.

But, as one quick thought:

Remember the split happened in 1917, most of the Bible Students left by 1925.

Now, that's something that I didn't know; hence, my query. For example, your observation:

Reading the early 'Towers you would see more emphasis on Jesus and Character development.

Yes indeed. And it was Rutherford's incessant attacks on "character development" throughout the 20s and well into the 30s that led me to believe that there was still a substantial Bible Student population in the classes.

Respectfully,

Craig

Farkel

RR,

It's always a pleasure to read your comments.

: To have to scroll through hundreds of lewd and vulgat postings just to find something I can contribute too, that's what pains me.

I will try not to be so vulgat next time, but that will take some hard work! Change my ways on "lewd?" No way! But "vulgat", I can work on.

Russell rocks! I love freaks! Heh, heh.

That being said, I will be your friend no-matter-what. We are all trying to figure out stuff on this little planet in this huge Cosmos and we simply must stuck together despite our differences.

Farkel

: To be honest, that bothers me too, though not in the respect of particularly what a person decides to do, but their expressed reasons for so doing, and whether what they have decided to do, and sometimes even brag about doing, runs contrary to their own best interests and the benefit of their human fellow beings. By no means have many, if not most, of the posters on JWD rejected God, Christ, or Scripture. Indeed, many of us (myself included) "see" God, Christ, and Scripture in a different perspective than we once did, but surely you've observed the spirited discussions about these very matters, and realize that!

I reject fortune cookies and everything related to them, including Holy Books and anyone who inserts themselves directly between me and my Maker. If my Maker needs to have some loser human intervene for me, then my Maker is a loser, too.

Farkel

Dino

Hello again RR.

Thanks for responding to Craig's post first of all. I'm sure that this will be an interesting thread because of his further probing for your perspective.

Onacruise, how dare you not agree with everything I post!!! I will reaffirm that I also dont know Craig from Adam.

RR, please dont dance around my questions to you. You know that I cant read hearts, but let's say for the sake of discussion that we replace proselytize with "enlightenment". Will you still be able to answer my questions offered? Let's play with semantics if you like and go back to those questions. As Onacruise said, your response dissapoints me greatly as it doesnt address what you say that you are all about as a devout Bible Student. Have you "enlightened" anyone in love or are you in a bully pulpit? I dont read hearts once again, but all I have to go on is your comments. A board such as this is a community and I actually respect your desire to not read vulgar posts. That is your right. However, you still cannot address why you dont acknowlege sincere posts for help, advice, or most importantly in this world that we live in, encouragement.

Hey dude, I'm not your enemy. I thought I made that abundantly clear. PEACE OUT big guy!

If you want to enlighten, sprinkle some love in there! It will come back and God wont hate you for rubbing shoulders with the unwashed ones.

Best,

Dino

PopeOfEruke

At least all the vulgat posts are in Latin.

Pope

Dino

Pope,

As always you are too funny!

I have my Latin Vulgar open now.

As Jerome would say, Carpe Weinus!

Oh crap, another vulgat post to scroll through.

Just kidding,

Dino

A look at 1975

Share this