Why the WTS love to name call! Awake June 22

by ISP 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  You Know

  Calling a JW to account or insisting that he defend his/her beliefs by use of the ``law and the attestation (Isa. 8:20) is hardly subverting the faith ...may I remind you that you have in previous posts called several of the Society's current beliefs ``indefensible.''

  The fact is, Jehovah does not really require his Witnesses to defend their faith before irreformable apostates. What would be the point? As far as defending the Watchtower, that's not necessary either. Our faith is wholly adequate to meet any challenges posed by corrupt former members or anyone else for that matter. Might I remind you that I have always succesfully defended my faith in on this and other forums over the years.

  The Biblical definition of apostasy transcends mere disagreements over doctrine and policy;

  You are a liar. From the very account in Timothy you cited the Bible shows that doctrinal deflection is the core of apostasy.

  By one Biblical definition of apostasy, 2 Timothy 2:17,18, might not the first two presidents of the WTBTS be regarded as apostates? --One postulated the resurrection of the sleeping saints as 1878, the other as 1918, I believe.

  That's an old trick that apostates have been running for some time. The thing is, the apostles had the prerogative to establish what was to be taught as doctrine. There really was no way to say for sure if the resurrection had begun except that the apostles said that it hadn't. So Hymanaeus and his apostate partner were subverting the faith of some because they were in opposition to the apostles. That's how it works in the modern era as well. The Governing Body have the responsibility of establishing what is to be taught as regards our official doctrine and policy and so forth. It is their prerogative to change that as they see fit. Your line of "reasoning" is just plain silly.

  If you care to extend the definition of apostasy to one who asserts the urgings of his conscience ahead of uncritical, total subservience to a religious body, you do well to consider what your participation in this forum suggests about your personal regard for Jehovah's bountiful spiritual table."

  That's your definition. The Scrptural definition is as I said: An apostate is a spiritually and morally corrupt individual who seeks to turn others away from his former faith.

  It's paradoxical that this religion of yours, arguably the most proactive and public of all, simply cannot withstand the scrutiny, or trial, in open forum.

  That's another lie. My faith has answered every challenge the apostate has presented. You might be able to stumble someone who is weak or weighed down, or perhaps not well-grounded in the truth for whatever reason, but the twisted reasonings of apostates are simply no match for one who knows Jehovah God and his word. / You Know
• 

  Farkel

  ISP,

  : Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Namecalling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller's strategy has worked.

  What a bunch of lying, abject hypocrites they are.

  You Know,

  : Similarly, when spiritually corrupt Jehovah's Witnesses make it their mission to undermine the faith of their former brothers, and set stumbling blocks before others, the term "apostate" is entirely appropriate.

  Yeah, we'll the most significant example of apostacy and one of only two places it was used in the NT, and one that stumbling others and leading them away from the faith was directed toward Philetus and Hymenaeus. And what was that horrible thing they were preaching? They were preaching that the resurrection had already occurred.

  Now, what is the only Christian religion that (to my knowledge) preaches exactly the same thing? Jehovah's Witnesses, that's who. They first preached that it occurred in 1878 and then now preach that it occurred in 1918.

  If they were wrong about 1874, then they were apostate. If they were right about 1874 then preaching it occurred in 1918 is apostacy. If they were wrong about both dates, it is apostacy. Anyway you look at it, Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates as Paul clearly showed.

  I find it laughable that they hurl the name "apostate" around for those who even doubt the crap they teach, yet NOWHERE in the Bible is merely doubting associated with the word "apostacy." Teaching that the resurrection has already occurred is DIRTECTLY tied to the word apostacy, though. Dubs are a joke and they are so stupid they don't even know what a joke they are. I scoff at them hurling around the world "apostate" as if it were some sort of mystical pox.

  You said to Room215:

  : That's your definition. The Scrptural definition is as I said: An apostate is a spiritually and morally corrupt individual who seeks to turn others away from his former faith.

  You mean like dub pedophiles, adulterers, thiefs, wife-beaters, tax evaders and alcoholics going out in field service? I've seen all of the above, btw.

  You never call me names, you know, so I won't call you any in this thread, either. I don't consider you calling me "bluster boy" in the past name-calling, btw. Especially coming from you!

  Farkel

  "I didn't mean what I meant."
• 

  expatbrit

  The Governing Body have the responsibility of establishing what is to be taught as regards our official doctrine and policy and so forth. It is their prerogative to change that as they see fit.

  In other words, it doesn't matter whether what they teach is right or wrong or pure bollocks. Just follow it anyway.

  Expatbrit
• 

  sf

  Robert,

  Do you have yahoo voice chat installed? If so, I'd like to engage you sometime.

  sKally
• 

  You Know

  No can do. / You Know
• 

  OUTLAW

  you know,Hey moron I challange you to pay up the bet you lost!Is your faith going to pay up the bet you lost!Or is it going to fail you one more time.The fact is you don`t know what you believe as the rules change at the great whores whim.Don`t you think you should show some sort of moral fibre before you start preaching to people.Your sorry religion has been caught with its pants down more than once.Do you make any effort to clean up your organization?No,you make excuses for its filthy behavior.You are a sorry excuse for a representative of god,your religion deserves you..BIRDS OF A FEATHER BOINK THE GREAT BEAST TOGETHER...OUTLAW
• 

  hillary_step

  Personally, I think for some of you the more descriptive moniker of "apostate Bozo" is even more fitting. LOL / You Know

  'A nick-name is the heaviest stone the Devil can throw at a man' - Haliburton

  HS
• 

  jayhawk1

  You Know,
  I just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas. Also I wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas next year, because there will be one next year, and the year after and .......

  Are you working on your prophecy for next October?

  "Hand me that whiskey, I need to consult the spirit."-J.F. Rutherford

  Jeremy's Hate Mail Hall Of Fame.
  http://hometown.aol.com/onjehovahside/ and [email protected]
• 

  COMF

  It is an accurate designation that signifies what a person is. For example: Referring to a prostitute as a prostitute is not name calling. It merely describes what a person does for a living.

  So, "false prophet" would come in this category, right?

  By the way... what's that date, again?

  COMF
• 

  larc

  You Know,

  You will find this hard to believe, but I agree with you. The basic definition of an apostate is someone who comes to disbelieve their religion. To the Catholics, Martin Luther was an apostate. To the Lutherans, Jacob Albright, founder of the Evangelical Church, circa 1803 was an apostate. To the Bible Students who left after Russel's death, the Jehovah's Witnesses were apostates. I don't see anything wrong with the standard use of the term.

  Now, You Know, I have a question for you. Since you have some beliefs about Biblical interpretation, regarding the end times, that are different than the Society's, aren't you to some degree an apostate also? Perhaps not as big an apostate as some of the rest of us, but an apostate nontheless.

  PS. - I hope you were able to get over the shock of me agreeing with you on something.