What was the most laughable JW teaching??

by chuckyy 73 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Mary

  Or how about the one where Charlie Russell thought that the scripture in Daniel about people "running to and fro" was talking about travelling on the locomotive.
• 

  sacolton

  Imagine trying to explain to someone how the "7 trumpet blasts" in Revelation referred to conventions attended by a few thousand Bible Students in the 1920's.

  Is that still in the big red book? I remember the first time reading it and rolling my eyes in disgust.
• 

  jamiebowers

  Bestiality wasn't grounds for divorce, and a woman was guilty for her rape if she didn't scream.
• 

  bluesbreaker59

  There are OH SO MANY, where would I even begin...

  Well I suppose, most of Russell's maniacal rants... Followed by Rutherford's Beth Sarim being built for "men of old"... Not celebrating birthdays or other holidays... But the worst for me is the shunning policy, that's just ludicrous and goes directly against the whole "forgiveness" principle of Christ.
• 

  LovesDubs

  That the JWs are the ONLY Christians on the entire planet and Gawd only listens to THEIR prayers.

  holy sh!t Batman...get OVER yourselves.
• 

  dawg

  Someone else mentioned this, but it really takes the cake... that you can't lick your wife's genitalia, and she can't yours. WTF?
  
  As if God sits in heaven, mad as hell because you've done some licking on your mate..
  
  I can see the conversation in heaven now, God: "Damn it Jesus, there goes Chuck licking on his lady again".... Jesus: "He's really got a problem with that one doesn't he Jehovah?"
  
  God: "Yea Jesus, I'm going to have to smite him with jock itch if he keeps on doing that crap".
  
  Thus the reason for my raging case of Jock Itch this summer...LOL!
• 

  donny

  Imagine trying to explain to someone how the "7 trumpet blasts" in Revelation referred to conventions attended by a few thousand Bible Students in the 1920's.

  Ditto!! And to think that someone as warped and crooked as Joseph P. Rutherford would be part of those seven blasts is some of the best comedy ever put in print. He may have had seven tequila blasts but that's about it.
• 

  dmouse

  Watchtower 1969 9/1 P.543-544

  Questions

  fromReaders

  •

  Some animals have characteristics that seem especially suited to killing, such as lions and poisonous snakes. How can this be, if they were all vegetarians at one time?—L.K.,Netherlands.

  It is understandable that this question might arise, for as things stand now many animals do kill one another for food. But please note that this is as things stand now. Is there anyone on the earth who can say from personal observation how these animals acted six thousand years ago?

  Throughout the earth humans kill animals and eat their flesh. But does man’s ability to chew and digest meat prove that all men eat meat or that men have always eaten meat? No, for God’s Word, the oldest and most reliable history of mankind, shows that originally Jehovah gave man "all vegetation bearing seed" and "every tree on which there is the a fruit of a tree bearing seed" as food. It was not until over sixteen hundred years later that God permitted a change of diet for man, allowing him to hunt animals for food.—Gen. 1:29; 9:2, 3.

  True, those who believe that man and animals evolved over a period of millions of years might not accept this, but it is what the Word of God says, and Jesus Christ said, "Your word is truth." (John 17:17) If the present diet and mode of life of humans does not represent what it originally was, is it not possible that the same is true of animals?

  We must keep in mind that scientists are limited in their knowledge. Even if a man is an authority in some field of animal life, he does not know all there is to know about an animal as it now lives, to say nothing about how it lived thousands of years in the past. Those who are humble and sincere admit this. The very fact that scientists have different opinions proves the point.

  For instance, the question came up as to whether cobras can hear sounds. On November 27, 1968, an Associate Curator of Reptiles at one of the large zoological gardens in the United States wrote: "All snakes are unable to hear sounds; this also includes the Cobra." That seems quite final. However, on the very same day the Curator and Chairman of the Department of Herpetology at the American Museum of Natural History explained: "It has been generally assumed . . . that snakes are deaf to air-borne sounds. Recent evidence has it, though, that some snakes can hear low-pitched sounds. How this relates to the cobra problem is uncertain. The weight of evidence is still in favor of the theory that it is movement rather than sound that influences the cobras, but the matter certainly is not closed."

  The Bible long ago indicated that the cobra hears the "voice of charmers," but could refuse to listen just as a human can refuse to hear. (Ps. 58:4, 5) Would it be wise to reject what the Bible says just because some scientists think the facts to be otherwise? The above quotations show that the answer is, No. Similarly, that certain current evidence does not seem to support what the Bible says about animal life in the past should not cause one to reject God’s inspired Word.

  Another thing, is one justified in concluding that the way an animal uses its body today is the only possible way? As an example, a tiger uses its fangs and claws to catch, kill and tear apart other animals. Yet, could not these same fangs and claws be used in tearing apart heavy vegetation and ripping off husks and shells?

  ‘But what about poisonous snakes?’ someone may ask. Animal poisons might appear to be just for killing or protection, but are they? In "Animal Poisoners" H. Munro Fox wrote: "In some cases we know that poisons play a role in the functioning of the body of the animal which manufactures them. In many instances this may be the real raisond’être [reason for existence] of the venoms, quite apart from any protective value. The poisonous spittle of snakes, for example, has work to do in the digestion of the snake’s food." Another illustration is a certain green marine worm that is partly covered with a poisonous slime. Is this poison to protect it from being eaten? It might seem so. Yet if the young of this worm settle on this slime, the poison changes them into microscopic males instead of the large females they would have developed into if they settled on the sea floor.

  It is true that hundreds or even thousands of problem cases might be brought up, ones that apparently indicate that animals always killed one another, that this is necessary for the "balance of nature." But should our lack of complete knowledge of God’s creation cause us to lose faith in him and his Word? Should we let questions about preying animals prey on us?

  The Bible explains that in the paradise in Eden God gave to "every wild beast of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens . . . all green vegetation for food." (Gen. 1:30) Later all of the basic kinds of land animals lived in Noah’s ark for a whole year without devouring one another. And evidently drawing on the conditions that existed in Eden and that will be restored in the future, God’s Word says: "The cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra . . . They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain."—Isa. 11:7-9.

  Surely the grand Creator who made the heavens and all that is in them, who arranged the perfect balance and order of the stars and who knows how harmony and peace existed in Eden, can restore paradise conditions. Bringing about a "balance of nature" wherein animals do not kill one another is not beyond His ability, is it? So, let us look forward to that time with confidence and trust.
• 

  oompa

  I really, really like this thread and pray (not really) that it be kept active for all eternity (not really). I prophesy that it should become an eventual "best of" thread, but it will not because it will be an eternal (not really) thread.

  So my fave may be the 1925 return of the dead old faithful men...to live at the beth sarim house.....holy crap what a monster false phrophecy!!!...but pales compared to the end of the world in 1914....how do we top that one????..............oompa
• 

  K.Matthews

  Well all those teachings already listed are just too much to comprehend but my favorite doctrine was that you could date if you were chaperoned and only if you were considering marriage. That would explain the MS's sniffing after me when I was 15 wouldn't it?