THE WATCHTOWER SAY'S THEY ARE / ARE NOT INSPIRED

by wasblind 59 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cedars

  Cedars - With respect, the word 'prophet' does not have to mean someone who makes a prediction of the future and claims that God gave it to them. A prophet can simply be a messenger of God. You're free to believe that the WT are deceptive, but please be careful that you are not (in your sincere enthusiasm), by starting these various campaigns of yours, causing damage and distress to peoples lives, by stirring up trouble for jw's via sensational articles based on your own viewpoint and not the WT's words alone. Otherwise, is your preaching your viewpoint (that could be wrong) on jw's and inciting emotional responses from people who may not have all the facts really any different than jw's spreading (what you view as) propaganda to people who don't know both sides of the story? I don't feel anymore that I could stir up anything against people that can't be undeniably proven to be part of something evil. Just a thought, I'm not attacking you. :)

  The Quiet One - I'd rather not waste my time by getting into a prolonged exchange with an apologist. I note that you choose to believe that there are multiple applications for the role of "prophet". The bible only prescribes ONE, but if you choose to believe differently to what the bible says, then that is your decision - and you are in good company in the Witness faith. You claim that I do not give both sides of the story in my articles, but if you'd actually read my last article on domestic abuse you would see that I did note that occasionally WT publications will give useful advice on the issue, but such instances are few and far between. As far as the claim that I cause "damage and distress to people's lives", I wish I could tell you exactly what damage has been done in my family by the Watch Tower Society and its publications. I have an elderley relative about to die of a horrible illness because he believes that blood transfusions are wrong, and I have relatives shunning one another EVEN THOUGH nobody is disfellowshipped - purely because certain ones are looked down on for not being strong enough in the "Truth". If you think that giving people who have been silenced a voice on the JW Survey and highlighting the damage caused by the WT's domestic abuse policy and hate-invoking rhetoric (i.e. mentally diseased) compares even remotely to killing people by making them refuse blood and setting close family members against one another - then you are entitled to this opinion. And again, you are in good company.

  Cedars
• 

  The Quiet One

  WASBLIND - Very sorry for the confusion, it's my mobiles fault, it doesn't use paragraphs.. If you carefully reread my post you'll see that the end part was aimed at Cedars. AGUEST - Yes, that was the point.. I was merely saying that the example of Moses and the rock didn't relate to the WT not being inspired, as far as I can see. Moses was still loved by Jehovah, even though he made a mistake, and I haven't even seen any evidence that the WT has taken the credit for anything that Jehovah has done.. So how does the example apply to the topic? Peace to you as well, anyway. JOOKBEARD - Why would you rely on someone else to explain your own beliefs? Just saying..
• 

  The Quiet One

  CEDARS - Your survey isn't going to cause problems for jw's, I wasn't referring to that. I'll drop this subject, you seem to be getting wound up and you're obviously going through a difficult time, I'm sorry.. On this point, though... CEDARS SAID: "I note that you choose to believe that there are multiple applications for the role of"prophet". The bible only prescribes ONE, but if you choose to believe differently to what the bible says, then that is your decision - and you are in good company in the Witness faith."... The WT do not claim to be inspired to tell the future, but are still 'prophets'. Here's an outside source to counter your claim that there was only 1 kind of prophet in the Bible. -- 'The foretelling of future events was not a necessary but only an incidental part of the prophetic office. The great task assigned to the prophets whom God raised up among the people was “to correct moral and religious abuses, to proclaim the great moral and religious truths which are connected with the character of God , and which lie at the foundation of his government .” Any one being a spokesman for God to man might thus be called a prophet. Thus Enoch , Abraham , and the patriarchs , as bearers of God 's message ( Gen. 20:7 ; Ex. 7:1 ; Ps. 105:15 ), as also Moses ( Deut. 18:15 ; 34:10 ; Hos. 12:13 ), are ranked among the prophets.' http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/prophet.html
• 

  cedars

  The Quiet One - Your reasoning is superfluous to the perceived objective of this discussion, and doesn't contradict anything I've said (e.g. a prophet is still a prophet, irrespective of how he or she is prophesying). Also, I think you would get a bit 'wound up' if someone accused you of causing "damage and distress to people's lives" - unless you no longer stand by those words? FYI - if you have a bone to pick with me, it is probably best to PM me directly rather than trying to besmirch my reputation on this forum. If your goal is to besmirch my reputation, then by all means start up a "Quiet One v. Cedars" thread, and I will gladly answer your accusations publically on there.

  Cedars
• 

  The Quiet One

  CEDARS - I wasn't accusing you of causing damage to peoples lives, sorry if it sounded like I was. I just meant that if someone starts up campaigns that incite persecution, that are not based on something the WT has directly said, they could cause some damage to jw's lives based on their own assumptions of an articles intent. As for the WT causing more harm.. Whether the damage you may cause with your opinion is less than the damage caused by the WT's opinion is not relevant as to whether it is right or wrong to unnecessarily cause damage. All I meant is that if someone, such as you, bases their public accusations on their view of the Wt's words, (and not their words alone) and runs away with that assumption by saying that (for example, claiming that the WT is telling women to stay with men that regularly beat them, not that you have necessarily said that but some could see it that way) they intended something beyond the actual words they have said, would you not admit that they could possibly be wrong? And if they were wrong, and they had incited trouble for people by that assumption, they would be at least partly responsible for the damage, wouldn't they? I am not saying that your campaigns are wrong, in case that is unclear. I used you as an example because of you are the best known on JWN for starting campaigns.. I'm only suggesting that people should base their accusations on what is printed, not what they think was meant.. The best way is just quoting the words, and even the article as a whole to give context, as an unbiased journalist would do and then letting people decide for themselves or enquire as to what was meant to the person/organisation that made the statement. Just something for people to think about, I'm not trying to damage your reputation. Please don't take a sincere and honest criticism and turn it into a fight. I'm not attacking you, just suggesting what I feel is a better way to give people information regarding the WT, without causing trouble that may not be necessary. Thanks for listening.
• 

  cedars

  The Quiet One - So if I'm reading you correctly, I should stop publishing my opinions on Watch Tower policy, and stop giving people the opportunity to vote on relevant issues, because by doing so I am inciting persecution?

  Please explain how this is...

  Cedars
• 

  cedars

  All I meant is that if someone, such as you, bases their public accusations on their view of the Wt's words, (and not their words alone) and runs away with that assumption by saying that (for example, claiming that the WT is telling women to stay with men that regularly beat them, not that you have necessarily said that but some could see it that way) they intended something beyond the actual words they have said, would you not admit that they could possibly be wrong? And if they were wrong, and they had incited trouble for people by that assumption, they would be at least partly responsible for the damage, wouldn't they?

  Whether I am right or wrong is for people to decide for themselves, and I am just as entitled to express my opinions as you are. When I express my opinions on an issue as sensitive as domestic abuse, I am sure to do so having first researched the topic thoroughly (the domestic abuse article was written over a weekend), and with a conscious effort not to say anything that is untrue or misleading in any way. If people then read my articles and agree with me, I can't see how this would in itself "incite trouble" for which I am to be held liable? If I am to be held liable for voicing my opinions on domestic abuse, does not the same reasoning apply to the Governing Body?

  You pose a lot of questions and make some pretty big claims, but you don't really explain your reasoning. It appears that you are trying to assert that freedom of speech is a negative thing. Again, you are in good company with JWs.

  Cedars
• 

  wasblind

  Hello there Cedars,

  expressin' " God given " freewill, is a sign of independent thinkin'

  which is a sign that you are bein' controlled by satan

  see how tangled up this religion is ???

  if you use somethin' that the Almighty God gave you, your in cahoots with satan
• 

  cedars

  Thanks wasblind - it is amazing how easy it is to become a pawn of Satan. I should have been more careful!

  Cedars
• 

  The Quiet One

  Firstly, I'm not against free speech at all, you have every right to express your views. But regarding this claim that you are not misleading anyone... CEDARS said: "with a conscious effort not to say anything that is untrue or misleading in any way." -- Perhaps you tried not to be misleading. But even with all of your caveats, you failed to explain a vital detail, which is.. the difference between the public and study editions of the WT, and who they are written for. If you are truly not trying to be misleading then you would explain, for the benefit of readers that aren't active jw's, that the Study edition is for baptised Jw's (or students who will be taught the Bible-based policies in the Bible Teach book) who know and choose to obey the Biblical command of Jesus to not divorce for anything except adultery and that THEY would ALREADY know the WT stance on marital seperation.. They would know that it is the persons choice, with no punishment, to leave or not to leave their partner; where abuse, endangerment or wilful nonsupport are involved. Jw's who read this WT article WOULD KNOW that domestic abuse is not condoned by the WT, with no need for a footnote disclaimer (which would obviously have been entirely necessary for a magazine article aimed at the public). But you don't explain this at all... You instead let some people believe that this experience was meant for people who didn't already know that domestic violence is not condoned by the WT. The ones who already know that it isn't condoned, the people who the article was intended for, do not need to be reminded with a footnote.