@sizemik:
PS; @DJ . . . you surely must have posted with some trepidation on this thread . . . you should have listened to your instincts . . . you are looking somewhat foolish
I am not a dog that I should be driven by my instincts to post or not to post here, and neither are you, but I am a man -- a human being -- that gave some consideration to the topic started here by the OP and decided to post my thoughts in response to his initial post. If I were a dog, which I'm not, then I suppose one could conclude that I was driven by instinct to post what I posted to this thread, but there wasn't the slightest reluctance on my part whatsoever in posting my initial and subsequent comment to this thread. If you want, you may even call me, The Intrepid. Maybe it would be good for you to keep in mind -- that is, if you, like me, aren't driven by your instincts -- that I do not post responses in any thread started here on JWN without giving consideration to the lurkers reading them. Some of the posters here are sincere and some of them are very bitter because of their belief that nothing they could have done was so serious as to have resulted in their alienation by beloved members of their family, but symbolizing one's dedication to Jehovah by water baptism is a serious matter, a fact powerfully driven home to them by disfellowshipment and without the slightest bit of trepidation.
Many of you here have Bibles, some still use the NWT, some will only use other Bible translations than the NWT in protest, but the Bible is not some lucky charm; it just isn't. You recall that Jesus said that "he that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37), and he meant it. Jesus said this in order to buttress the following point: "A man's enemies will be persons of his own household." (Matthew 10:36). Just as many of the passive believers in the Bible here have become enemies of God by scheming against the eternal interests of their own family members that have been gathered in union with Christ through the use of craft and "counterfeit words" with a view to "getting them out of the Borg,' as they say, these are the ones that now 'walk as enemies of the torture stake of the Christ,' for Jesus said that "He that receives you receives me also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth." (2 Peter 2:2, 3; Philippians 3:19; Matthew 10:40)
If one claims to believe the Bible, and yet does not receive the Christ, then how can we receive the one that sent Jesus "to gather all things together again in the Christ ... that we should serve for the praise of [Jehovah's] glory"? (Ephesians 1:10, 12) So you, the ones holding a copy of the Bible in your hands, whatever the translation, the ones reading and quoting from it without purpose, what possibility of success could puny man hope to have against the irresistible will of God?
Jesus said that "He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters." (Matthew 12:30) Christians must be gathered in union with Christ, and must share in gathering others by letting them hear the good news. The "other sheep" is not chosen by God, so our salvation is based on our blessing ourselves. "By means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves." (Genesis 22:18) It is through the good news that folks are being gathered by Jehovah's Witnesses in union with Christ Jesus for salvation that they might bless themselves by serving God "for the praise of his glory."
Read Genesis 22:18 in your own copy of the Bible and get the point: People of all of the nations of the earth are blessing themselves by means of Jesus, the seed of Abraham, which means that they are all being giving the opportunity to "bless themselves" by means of the good news, and based on their response to the message that Jehovah's Witnesses are preaching, some are saving themselves by means of the good news by their dedicating themselves to serve God "for the praise of his glory" by getting baptized, just as many of you here on JWN did.
The administration of the Christ is not some worldly club where one joins and gains membership in it. Dedication and baptism is not some ritual for the purpose of being initiated into obtaining status in a group to attain some degree of prestige because you have been invited to become a part of it. No, but dedication and baptism a serious matter for those mature enough to recognize the seriousness of it, and it not something to be taken lightly. It is, in fact, saving us, and even a 12-year-old child that cannot possibly understand what all is involved in planning a vacation to Aspen, Colorado, or know what it means to run a household is able to understand how dedication and baptism is saving mankind. (1 Peter 3:21)
If you deem it worthy to be fighters against God, then why don't "you guys" organize and canvass the communities where you are living and get your message out against the good news of salvation that Jehovah's Witnesses are preaching instead of trying to convince your own close family members that they would be better off leaving "the cult," the pejorative that many here use when referring to Jehovah's organization -- as many of you have done or are planning to do -- so that they end up perishing with you? I've seen the news stories of the distraught man that has lost his job and is about to lose his home that murders his wife and his young children, and then turns the gun on himself, committing suicide. So have you. I've heard the news stories of the depressed divorced mother that drowns all of her young children and then takes her own life by doing the same or through a drug overdose. So have you. Why would anyone want to jeopardize the future life prospects of one's own parents and grandparents, even one's own children, for the pleasure of having all of these people perish along with you when the end comes? When is it ever loving to cause the death of another?
But you just want your loved ones that are still "in" to know that you love them and to forget all about the ransom that Jehovah provided through Christ's death for their eternal salvation and gather with you, even though you have to know that by your seeking to make them disenchanted with the good news that they've accepted, that they cannot expect you to be loyal to them if you would eschew and treat Jesus' blood by means of which he was sanctified as being of ordinary value, and outrage God's provision for salvation "with contempt" by eschewing the vow that you made to God and becoming disloyal to God. (Hebrews 10:29) "He that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37), but do you have greater affection for your loved ones than you do for Jesus?
Face it: Those who have gathered to Jesus' side have greater affection for Jesus than they do for you, and while I'm sure that they are sad that you would think that you could successfully fight against God, they are not going to perish with you. None of these people are going to leave Jehovah and stop blessing themselves by means of Jesus for you, unless they should lose all sense of reason and become as unreasonable as you have become, so as long as you continue to view God and Christ in the abstract, as long as you continue to view your disloyalty to them as a meaningless concept, enjoy your freedom from "the Borg"; you're are lacking in spirituality and are on your own now. Disloyalty to God and Christ is not some meaningless concept.
One other thing, @sizemik: Just so you don't remain in your delusional state, I've said all of this without the slightest bit of trepidation. I take my service to God quite seriously.
@the max:
Yes Eggy, Simon indeed permits you, infact 99% of us permit you, Isnt it ironic that WE are an open community,divergent in views, we have freedom of thought freedom of expression,GOD given freedoms, that your cult would seek to deny us.
So it is the "99% of us" that permits me to post to JWN, and my "cult" stifles the freedom of thought and freedom of expression that you have here on JWN, and you're telling this why? If these were the conclusions you reached about Jehovah's Witnesses, and you elected to leave off from association with us, why would you be telling me any of these things? Have I recruited you to join my "cult"? I respect your right to choose your religion and I accept that you decided to make a different choice than I did. I have not asked nor do I require from you an explanation from you as to any of the reasons on which your choice was based.
Your cult got your dates wrong with 607 BCE, THE correct year was 587, so any [puerile (sic)] claims that [YOUR] LOT [was] chosen circa 1919, is false. A fact, that I am [disseminating] far and wide with many active witnesses, who will in turn do likewise.
Did we? Is this the reason you are chiding me about my "cult's" stifling your freedom of thought and freedom of expression, because Jehovah's Witnesses have gotten one or more of their dates wrong? Based on what you write here I would infer that what you are telling me here is that the date when Solomon's temple was destroyed and razed to the ground by Nebuchadnezzar's military forces was 587 BC and not 607 BC, so here's my question: So what? I didn't join this thread to be ambushed about 587 BC or 607 BC or 1914 AD or 1919 AD. I joined this thread merely to respond to the OP's QfR parody.
I'm now starting to wonder just how many rounds you have in the weapon you're using. I'm now beginning to wonder just how much longer I'm going to have to wait until your clip is empty and you'll have to reload. I don't care what you're disseminating; your ambushing me with this suggests that you might be some "crazy" that I need to avoid. If you want to discuss a particular topic with me, start a thread and maybe I'll join that thread and maybe not because, quite frankly, I don't relish trying to have a discussion with a crazy person, which you might, in fact, be.
I don't know what you are, but right now the idea of having a discussion with you as to when Solomon's temple was destroyed and the implications that flow from this date is daunting and I'm absolutely sure that I do not want to be discussing such an important Bible-related topic with some crazed individual, if it should become apparent that you are such. Like some of the kids say, do you feel me? I have no desire, @the max, to be a participant in the hijacking of someone else's thread in order to discuss some other topic with you.
I notice you have not attempted to answer my question regarding the increasing number of young, and old for that matter, of those taking the Emblems, Why ? There will be many looking on, no doubt some active witnesses, who will conclude you and WTS, are frauds.
Again I'm wondering how many rounds remain in the chamber. You brought up this matter in a different thread in an attempt to hijack that one, and I declined to do so, and you even started a thread hoping to engage me in a discussion about the youngest of those that partake of the emblems that are representative of the body of Christ and the blood of the new covenant, and I declined to join that thread, and here you are again attempting to hijack yet another thread hoping that I would be willing to discuss this matter with you; I'm not willing to do it.
Your quasi [religious] cult was not formed on the ROCK of CHRIST, It was formed on LIES, WHO is the father of the lie ? SATAN
Jehovah's Witnesses are a body of Christians, and not a cult, and the Christian congregation, not Jehovah's Witnesses, was founded, not formed, on the rock-mass, that is to say, on the Lord Jesus Christ, and the congregation of the living God is "a pillar and support of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) You want to have a discussion with me about the Christian congregation? Fine. Go have it with someone else. You'd have a better chance were you to start a different thread of your own; maybe someone will join it and post a response to it, but I've no interest in having such a discussion with you in this thread, and there's no guarantee that I will join such a thread should you start one, because I'm be remembering what you tried to do here in this thread and in another one.
What you would proposed we do here is called "hijacking" for a reason, and on the 'net, people do not expect to read a thread ostensibly about one topic that had devolved into some other topic. Maybe you cannot comprehend what I'm saying here, but I'm not doing it. You want to be rude, that's fine, but you shouldn't expect me to join you in being rude. Furthermore, I didn't join this thread to discuss any other topic beyond the one initiated by the OP.
@sd-7 wrote:
In ancient times, it is evident that objects of an idolatrous, immoral nature were designed for use in sexual immorality.... Yet, even confronted with clear Bible counsel to avoid the use of sex "toys"....
@djeggnog wrote:
And why on earth would any elder be interested in what a married couple might be doing or need to do in enjoying sexual intimacies with their own marriage mate?
@pirata wrote:
w83 3/15 p31. indicates that a married couples sex lives are of limited interest to the elders (and this is the latest instruction on the matter, as far as I know)....
@djeggnog wrote:
BTW, while I found your post to be interesting (meaning only that it caught my interest), I found it also to be boring, and in posting what you did to this thread, you and @lovelylil and @pirata were all off-topic. If you had nothing to contribute to this thread, like maybe an "attaboy" to the OP about his wonderful writing skills that even fooled a few folks like @cheerios and @nugget and now @Igot2me before they realized your post was just a joke, then why hijack someone else's thread just to tell me something that you believe must be understood according to your own understanding when I reject any opinion that I don't personally solicit, and especially the stupid ones?
@pirata wrote:
I was replying to your statement:
@djeggnog wrote: And why on earth would any elder be interested in what a married couple might be doing or need to do in enjoying sexual intimacies with their own marriage mate?
Right, but that statement I made in response to @sd-7's post was to point out to him that it isn't likely that a mature Christian would be deceiving into believing that his QfR parody was something published by the Society, for they wouldn't not "believe that the use of a vibrator, a condom, a book (on sexual fulfillment) or whatever might be construed by someone as a "sex toy," constitutes porneia in any form that could give an "offended mate" (what exactly does an "offended mate" mean?) scriptural grounds for divorcing their mate. I recall there being only one scriptural ground for divorce, but the use of sex toys wasn't that reason."
It seemed to me that you were trying to put forward the point that it isn't true that elders do not take an interest in what sexual intimacies might be shared by married couples, for the elders do take a limited interest in the "sex lives" of married couples, which, firstly, isn't true, and secondly, is not the point that I was making to the OP as to his QfR parody. I believe I understand why it was you wrote what you did, but, in my opinion, @pirata, your comment was off-topic.
While I agree that Elders are not interested in other couple's sex lives, the watchtower quote shows that there are times when organizational guidelines require elders get involved in matters involving a married couples sex life (such as if it becomes known [that] have oral sex).
Such is not the business of or even the province given to the elders in any of the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and this is all I'm going to say in this thread in response.
@sd-7 wrote:
Well, djeggnog, unless 'The Watchtower' has an 'Adult Study Edition' that I don't know of, then it should be obvious that this was a joke.
@mrquik:
Damn, I just bought the wife a vibrator shaped like the Easter Bunny for Christmas.
Well, since @sd-7's QfR article is just "a joke," you won't have to retire it or throw it away if you or your wife(!) doesn't want to do so. It's a shame that you couldn't have splurged a bit and bought her one shaped like a Thanksgiving turkey for Valentine's Day. But if such a device is required to please your wife, then as her husband, you would certainly be the one that would know this and why, and I have no opinion, for what you need or don't need to use in any room of your house would be no one else's concern but yours.
@cantleave:
BTW eggnog - when I was DF'd I was told in no [uncertain] terms that this IS an apostate site. You should not be on here.
Then you must be like one of those fools that never think for themselves, someone that puts faith in every word without reasoning on why it is they believe the things they do. Whether there are apostates that frequent JWN or not, @Simon doesn't seem to discriminate between those who are and that who are not, and whatever it is you might have been persuaded to believe is irrelevant since I view JWN as being a website where anyone is welcome to discuss any topic with other JWN subscribers at their election or just read the threads posted by JWN subscribers without any requirement on their part to contribute to any of these threads.
When my children were attending school, they were told by many of the teachers and other students that they must ask for permission if they should need to "use it," but they were told by me that if they needed to "use it," they needed to inform the teacher that they needed to excuse themselves from the classroom so that they might "use it," and maybe you cannot see the subtle difference between their asking their teacher for permission or asking their teacher to be excused, but here it is:
When my children were being toilet-trained, they were taught to use the bathroom whenever it was they felt the need to do so, and once they came to learn that because it was their right to relieve themselves whenever it was they felt the need to do so, they have never felt compelled to ask permission to do what was already their right to do. Imagine the stir our instruction caused when my children would inform the teachers of their need to "use it," and then, when one of their teachers would tell them "no" as if they had sought permission to use the bathroom, which they were never taught to do, they would walk right out of the classroom to relieve themselves.
Now I tell you this story, @cantleave, not because I think you're a nice guy or because I want to have a beer with you one day, but so that you might appreciate that while I respect your right to believe whatever it is someone tells you or whatever it is you might choose to believe, I won't allow you to tell me what to believe. This could well be the reason you should not have become one of Jehovah's Witnesses because your weak-mindedness allowed some strong-minded Witness to convince you to symbolize your dedication to Jehovah God by water baptism when you had absolutely no idea whatsoever what dedication and baptism meant.
You are free to believe JWN to be an apostate website, but since I am not an apostate, but am actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then how can JWN be an apostate website as long as I am here posting to it? Should @Simon ever decide to restrict JWN membership to just apostates, in that case, I will not be found posting messages to JWN. You may not have had a lot of experience thinking, but I have had many years of doing so, and while I'm a strong-minded Witness, I would never try to persuade anyone to get baptized unless I had first explained to the student what dedication and baptism means.
Judging by the posts that I've read on JWN over a period of time, including this last one, @cantleave, you never learned what dedication and baptism means and think you know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, but you are ignorant of many things. While I don't hold this against you -- for no one knows everything! -- I do not respect your point of view, even though you are entitled to have one.
BTW, you're off-topic.
@BizzyBee:
I admit I am not as conversant with Eggnog as some, but is it not just possible that he is the one having the biggest leg-pull here?
Yes, that is possible (and I am having a blast).
@sd-7 wrote (in a different thread):
Your path is just beginning. You'll have much to do and much to absorb. Clearly you need some extra training so you can find work and get out of your parents' home. That is your first priority. In the meantime, continue reading the Bible, spend time continuing to examine the Society's history and verify what you might read on the Internet. There are some great resources out there, jwfacts is one of the best.
@djeggnog wrote:
I especially thought "continue reading the Bible" to be priceless advice considering that it serves no beneficial purpose for anyone that is determined to take a path contrary to The Way to be reading the Bible. You don't know the dynamic that exists between this young man and his girlfriend and yet in real life this dynamic is very important if one is to sustain a romantic relationship, so what if she should meet someone else while attempting to execute the plan that you proposed, and emotional immaturity on his part should lead him to do things that he never would have done had he not listened to you and others here that provided the kind of determination needed to pursue his leaving God's organization, as you have done, only to maybe get himself strung out on drugs because of his making drug users his friends (to whom he will be beholden to buy the next "round" of drugs), or his having to take meds for the rest of his life because of his having (maybe) contracted a STD of some kind (like herpes) or (maybe) becoming sterile, completely trashing whatever ideas he might have had of starting a family and having children of his own? In the world these things are a part of real life from which we adults want to protect our children. Are you an adult?
I would also note that in this other thread, you began by telling the young man that "this is a dangerous time for you," while @yadda yadda 2 went on to advise him" to "don't be afraid to get a bit physical together. It sounds like you are in love so [don't] fight it or you'll be miserable," which was callously incredible to read since the fact that "you guys" would give him such advice underscores what you told him as to this being "a dangerous time" as far as the advice he received from you two guys here on JWN.
@sd-7:
But the bottom line for me is, not to tell people to leave the Christ, but rather, to STOP BEING SLAVES OF MEN. The risks of ending up on drugs or getting an STD are very real, and I would never recommend that people hang out with someone who uses drugs or go and just have sex with whoever they want, whenever they want. That's just not a good idea in general, regardless of your faith or lack thereof. To suggest that I'm interested in destroying people's spirituality is no more insulting than my parody.
I don't believe I can be accused of being vague in anything I said to you, @sd-7. I didn't say that you would ever recommend that anyone should hang out with drug users or engage in casual sex with "whoever they want, whenever they want." I never suggested that you were interested in destroying another's spirituality either.
Now I specifically named @yadda yadda 2, who, in this other thread, had dispensed some anti-spiritual advice to the young man to whose thread we all had been posting to the effect that he shouldn't "be afraid to get a bit physical together" if he and his girlfriend were in love," which gave rise to my agreeing with your comment as to this being "a dangerous time." You want to fight with me over something I said? That's fine, but try to restrain yourself from fighting me over things I did not say, ok? If you're going to take the time to read my posts, then please take the time to read and respond to what I have written, and not post responses to things that you only imagine me to have written.
No group of men should have the right to make the kinds of decisions the Society makes for people.
You know what? Everyone has a gripe of some sort. You may have several of them, one of them being that the Society makes decisions that it has no right to make for people, and by "Society," I am assuming here that what you are really saying is that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses and not the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, which is the corporate publishing arm staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses that produces the literature, including Bibles and media items that Jehovah's Witnesses use in their Christian ministry, while material from the Writing Department is signed off on by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
You may know this already, but our legal, engineering, art, photography, translation and correspondence departments are likewise staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses, which is why it is ridiculous that people here on JWN blame the governing body when so many people are responsible for the organized work that in we are obliged to do. My point here is that the Society does not make decisions for anyone, but you believe otherwise, so that I understand your gripe, what decisions has the Society made that you believe it had no right to make for others?
When they say "come to God's organization for salvation," there's no interpreting involved there. It means what it says.... But let's say somebody figures out who djeggnog is, prints out HIS posts and shows them to a whole truckload of elders throughout the area? Unless he really IS in the Writing Department, or similarly highly placed and thus untouchable, I doubt that would end well for him.
I believe my anonymity makes me more effective here, so that the focus can rightly be placed, for example, on your gripes, rather than on personalities, so as much as you may enjoy speculating as to the role I play in God's organization, you imagine that my being here is about rank; it isn't. This is not a Kingdom Hall and almost everyone here is anonymous, no one can reasonably think I'm watching them, observing them, monitoring them. Your mention of elders here suggests crippled thinking on your part as if elders are to be feared for some reason, as if they are not equally brothers with those that may not have been appointed to serve as such, but we are all brothers, none of us being greater or lesser than another, although the roles and responsibilities to which we may have been assigned may vary.
My point in writing this article was to demonstrate how the power of scripture can be abused. It can be manipulated into any kind of belief imaginable. It underscores the danger of merely taking the words in some religious group's literature at face value, rather than thinking for yourself and carefully examining the scriptures. Or, indeed, simply using innate power of reason and thinking about your actions and the consequences thereof and choosing a wise course.
But my point was that what you wrote couldn't fool a spiritually mature Christian. Isn't this in a nutshell what I wrote in my initial response to your post? I wrote:
I knew from the outset that what you had written had not come from any of our publications, but, unfortunately, there are those who would read your post -- perhaps someone might print it out and say that they obtained an "advance copy" of a QfR article that had not yet been published -- and be persuaded to believe that the use of a vibrator, a condom, a book (on sexual fulfillment) or whatever might be construed by someone as a "sex toy," or whatever might be regarded as a "sex toy," constitutes porneia in any form that could give an "offended mate" (what exactly does an "offended mate" mean?) scriptural grounds for divorcing their mate. I recall there being only one scriptural ground for divorce, but the use of sex toys wasn't that reason.
There are hundreds of Christian denominations so your point about the ease with which the Scriptures can be manipulated was an unnecessary point to be made to a mature Christian; we know this already. We are qualified to teach others what the Bible says and are able to prove, using the Bible, what the Bible teaches and what it doesn't teach. What your parody proves is that you can write a piece in the style of one of the QfR's that appear in the Watchtower, and it's clear to me that this slur against Jehovah's Witnesses was written because you imagine "something either risqué or maybe sinister about sexual relations between a husband and his wife.
Now despite the fact that this parody of yours was "well-written and could fool the [not-as-studious-as-the-rest] Witness into believing it to be a real article published by the WTS, I also told you because I am "pretty sure that others could be persuaded to believe that we had published this QfR parody," that "you might have opened yourself up to a lawsuit" in the future. Anyone that would do what you did here to the extent that you had gone just to make a joke demonstrates your ability to deceive others by producing a "counterfeit" in the style of one of our QfR articles, and the problem you would have in explaining what you did here on JWN is in showing, to the satisfaction of a jury, how your Post 1492 would have been construed as a parody by the reader of it. Your post began with the question:
Does the use of sex toys by a marriage mate constitute a form of porneia, thus forming scriptural grounds for divorce?
-- and the title of this thread, "The Watchtower, Adult Study Edition, Volume 2, Article 1: Questions From Readers," will not provide any cover for you post. People often post quotations from WTS publications here and while if they should do so, they ought to include an appropriate attribution, folks do not always do so. However, what you posted was, again, in the same style in which QfR articles are presented in the Watchtower, so the unwary reading your post is more likely than not conclude that what you are now calling a parody was, in fact, taken from the Watchtower, despite the fact that was no attribution provided in your post.
The assiduous Witness would not be fooled into believing you had posted a legitimate QfR article, but not-as-studious-as-the-rest Witness could be fooled, and there is no reason for me to believe that you wouldn't -- if you aren't already -- produce more of such parodies in the future, whether for profit or otherwise, that might reflect unfavorably upon the work that Jehovah's Witnesses are doing and impugn our reputation.
In your seventh post -- Post 1499 -- you indicated that "the thought just popped into my head" hinting that it was a joke, but it only after my Post 354 that you admitted in your tenth post in this thread -- Post 1502 -- that you indicated that "this was a joke." Recall @cheerios had indicated in his Post 221 that he "fell for it," even as did @nugget and@Igot2me despite your revelation in Post 1502.
You wrote --
Also, I know a bit about the law, and I'm pretty sure that you can't be sued for doing a parody--and if I can be, by a rather well-endowed corporation that hardly needs my two cents that I can barely rub together....
-- but if the contents of your post should show up elsewhere the damage award against you could prove to be rather severe. I'm sure you have heard the word "defamation" and you may have heard the phrase, "defamation per se." In order for a parody to be actionable at law as defamation, it must be deemed factual.
However, if the statement said to be defamatory should be determined to be protected opinion, then this would be a complete defense to defamation. In case you don't quite follow me here, even though you do "know a bit about the law," in order for you to successfully defend against defamation where a parody is concerned, what this means is that your post would only be construed as protected opinion if one of the following criteria should be true about the statement being litigated:
(1) It cannot contain a provably false factual connotation.
(2) It cannot reasonably be understood as suggesting the occurrence of actual events.
(3) It consists of rhetorical hyperbole or an obvious epithet.
(4) It cannot express or imply undisclosed, unassumed, or unknown (or not generally well known) defamatory facts.
Your post was well- written, which is why I told you that I was "pretty sure that others could be persuaded to believe that we had published this QfR parody," and for this reason there might be not a little exposure here. A parody is not a joke when there is a finding of "actual malice." Now didn't you write:
No group of men should have the right to make the kinds of decisions the Society makes for people.
It would be great (for you) were you able to figure out how this statement of yours can be explained as lacking malice, but, as I read this statement, it is chock full of actual malice. Do you wish harm to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society? Is it your wish to cripple our preaching work financially so that our traveling overseers and missionaries assigned to where the need in greater have to be recalled from their assignments? It is your desire to harm the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses in the world by innuendo? If it can be proved that there is actual malice, then your parody is not going to be adjudicated as being a joke. You also wrote:
My point in writing this article was to demonstrate how the power of scripture can be abused. It can be manipulated into any kind of belief imaginable. It underscores the danger of merely taking the words in some religious group's literature at face value, rather than thinking for yourself and carefully examining the scriptures. Or, indeed, simply using innate power of reason and thinking about your actions and the consequences thereof and choosing a wise course.
But you didn't suggest any of this in Post 1492, your initial post that gave rise to my concern here as to your motive for posting this counterfeit QfR article.
I would agree with numerous posts here that indicate that Jehovah's Witnesses may be susceptible to accepting Watchtower reasoning at face value, but they're not stupid people.
I disagree; many Jehovah's Witnesses are stupid people, in the sense that many of them are not worldly-wise. For example, it is not unknown that many Jehovah's Witnesses back in the 70s had "decided," at the behest of elders, who had no right to be deciding for folks, that they should forego the taking of additional courses at a two-year or four-year college, which decisions deprived many of the opportunity to provide the kind of financial security for their families that would have made them eligible to take better paying jobs.
Not everyone have the kind of circumstances that will permit them to enter the full time work as pioneers; some of our youths want to be doctors, lawyers, accountants, bankers, electricians, engineers, architects and computer analysts which require an investment of two, four, six even eight years of study in order to obtain the necessary credentials that enable one to work in their field of study. As a result of decisions that were made a long time ago, the children of that generation of the 70s that were lacking in discernment are not repeating the mistakes of their parents and are 'calculating the expense' (Luke 14:28) before jumping into the full time work.
Besides, what's so far-fetched about avoiding sex toys for a JW, anyway? Much of the reasoning in the article was actually pretty sound in its own way. I think it would go against a standard JW's conscience to use stuff like that. Either way, the sum total of literature months and months ahead is readily available to Witnesses; it would be very easy to look ahead and see that no such article was in existence, and the pattern of articles altogether would easily prove that no such article was forthcoming.
So you are now rationalizing the effect of your parody on the unwary reader? I found nothing "sound" in the reasoning employed in your post.
If they take the article to an elder, they'll get in trouble because...UH OH...the elders checked the source and found it to be an apostate website!
It's funny that you keep forgetting that when the article finds its way into the hands of one of Jehovah's Witnesses, it will not give evidence of it being a parody, but it will be assumed by the unwary to be a legitimate QfR article. Didn't you just say that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't stupid people? What about ex-Jehovah's Witnesses?
The idea that because some people here are JWs, therefore it's not an apostate website is like taking a bunch of JWs into a worldly nightclub and calling it a JW nightclub. Sorry, doesn't work.
No, it isn't at all akin to calling a nightclub "a JW nightclub." It would be more like someone told you a particular school has a "whites-only" policy, that blacks aren't permitted to play basketball after-hours at a particular school. Now you happen to be black and you believe this information to be true until a month later you notice several blacks as well as whites and some Hispanics playing full court basketball after-hours at this particular school, with two referees on the court and with many spectators of both races in attendance. If there should be just one black kid playing on this basketball court, or one Hispanic kid, then how can it be true that this particular school has a "whites-only" policy?
Now you have said -- and btw you are not alone in saying this -- that JWN is an "apostates-only" website. But does my presence here not prove that there is no such policy here on JWN? I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call your hand: Prove your contention and I'll leave, but if you should fail to do so, will you then agree to leave off from posting anything here on JWN for a minimum of 30 days?
@jgnat:
It just so happens that this week's article is "Do You Hate Lawlessness?", which blondie will later expound in her thorough style.
Why? Maybe @blondie didn't expound on this article back on 8 February 2011 in the thread started by @flipper (Post 12584), which has had more than 8,000 views, when back on 10 February 2011, @Mary posted two scans from this February 15, 2011 article on Page 4 (Post 12630) --
-- and on 13 February 2011, I first posted to it on Page 6 (Post 258), but it's always possible that she did and I don't remember.
@djeggnog
