Egg - You have been misled to believe something that really isn't true or taught by God's organization. Although it is not advisable that Jehovah's Witnesses visit websites like this one for those without serious doubts as to their faith might succumb to some of the flawed argument posited here and what faith they did have before coming here is gradually eroded away. It can happen and this is the reason for the many articles that the Society has published in this regard.
This is a lie. The question box in the September 2007 KM asks the question as to whether or not the FDS endorses independent groups who engage in research or debate. The answer was a resounding "no". The publication brings out that witnesses have created chat rooms for the purpose of exchanging or debating their views....but Jehovah's people are receiving ample spiritual instruction at meetings, assemblies, conventions and through WT publications. "Thus the FDS does not endorse any websites that are not produced or organized under it oversight". Never ONCE does this or any other publication of theirs make any distinction between old/young/new/old/with doubts/without doubts/strong or weak. It is advised that ALL witnesses stay away from websites like this one. Again please advise why YOUR conscience overrides the counsel given by your leaders.
Egg - How exactly did I lie? This "question box" article to which you refer seeks whether the Society endorses or sanctions websites that it doesn't itself set up, and the answer is it doesn't provide oversight for any website other than its own websites. You have read way more into this "question box" article than is there.
You lied by saying that avoiding websites such as this is NOT taught by your cult leaders. No one said it was a DOCTRINE, but it is indeed TAUGHT in assembly parts and publications that JWs should avoid sites such as this one. Again, YOU inserted the word DOCTRINE so that you could ATTEMPT to defeat the argument. Your words alone say enough. I italicized them. "It is not advisable"....."this is the reason for the many articles that the Society has published in this regard. Let's see......who are the ones that determined that it is not advisable? Your leaders. If it is NOT ADVISABLE then it could also be described as DISCOURAGED. Let's see.....what else is DISCOURAGED by your leaders? How about leaving the district convention during the lunch break to go eat out instead of staying on site and "enjoying fellowship"? How about a man and a woman going on a date alone (gulp) with no chaperone? How about watching rated R movies? How about playing violent video games? These are all advised against......BUT NOT DOCTRINE. Your leaders would not consider the above activities to be the actions of a "mature Christian" that humbly submits to "theocratic order". In fact....the above noted activities, if admitted to, would label a person as bad association. Though not a doctrine, your course of action is in your own words inadvisable. And if your leaders are the ones that determined that visiting sites such as this one is "not advisable" then you lied by saying that it is not a teaching. (and quit trying to sneak the word "doctrine" into the scenario)
Egg - However, to my knowledge, the fact that you and many others might consider yourselves to be apostates does not mean that I view you as such. Some of you are misguided individuals that have never learned the truth. You should know that I do not rely upon the subjective judgments of others for the decisions I make and the conclusions I draw. If anyone's conscience should accuse the person, it is a sin for that person and they should not be here, but if one's conscience should excuse the person, then they commit no sin. (Romans 2:15; James 4:17)
According to the doctrine of your cult, whether a person is merely disfellowshipped or an all out apostate that preaches against the advancement of your cult, you are to treat that person the same. Exept in certain situations when family or business makes it necessary to converse.....Jehovah's Witnesses are not even supposed to say a greeting to a disfellowshipped one. This again begs the question.....why do you banter back and forth with people on this website that have admitted to being disfellowshipped or disassociated? Why is YOUR conscience allowed to trump the counsel of your leaders?
Egg - Look, young man: You don't get to tell me what doctrines Jehovah's Witnesses believe or to what doctrines I should adhere. If you want to ask me a question, ask away, but I would never allow someone else to tell me what the beliefs of my own faith are or what they believe I ought to be doing to live in compliance with them. You're a very silly man.
Well....I just did. And to make matters worse for you....I am right. Are you indicating above that there are DOCTRINES that you may choose not to adhere to? Obviously talking to DFd people is one of them. Any others? Furthermore, are you saying above that avoiding contact with DFd and DAd people is NOT part of JW doctrine? If so could you show me the article that says it is ok or that it is a conscience decision? Tell us why it is ok for a "mature christian" such as yourself to associate with DFd and DAd people. And while you are doing so....to humor us.....please explain how you go about maintaining your humility and submission to "Jehovah's arrangement" in the process.
Egg - You should know that I do not rely upon the subjective judgments of others for the decisions I make and the conclusions I draw. If anyone's conscience should accuse the person, it is a sin for that person and they should not be here, but if one's conscience should excuse the person, then they commit no sin. (Romans 2:15; James 4:17) No one can decide for me who is an apostate and who isn't an apostate. Many of you have Bibles, but put more faith in the hype than the things that Bible teaches so that you parrot as doctrines what others believe to be sins, or rules or commands, when what is being spread is opinion, falsehood, lies like 'the Society instructs you not to post on sites like this one.'
Oh....what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Here is a quote from Egg on a different topic that we discussed last summer. "If anyone desires to buy a raffle ticket, he is free to do so; if anyone desires to wear a beard, he is free to wear one. If anyone feels he must continue his association with a disfellowshipped person, that's ok; he is free to do this as well, but in his engaging in any such conduct when admonished not to do so, he is not submitting to God's arrangement, and this is the point." So DJ....why do you feel that it is no longer necessary to "submit to God's arrangement" by associating on an unapproved website with unapproved associates? Have you "taken a stand against the arrangement of God?"
Egg - You're off-topic.
Perhaps. But please.....for the benefit of those that may be lurking here.....go ahead and answer. How, exactly are you "submitting to God's arrangement" by ignoring admonitions that come from his "faithful slave"?
Egg - It is Jehovah's Witnesses as a body of Christians that interpret Bible doctrines.
Yup. You got it. All seven of them
Egg - I was referring to all Jehovah's Witnesses, all seven million plus, not the current seven members that comprise the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses. You are the one saying mindless things about the governing body being responsible for all of the interpretations to which Jehovah's Witnesses adhere.
Am I right to say that every last belief of Jehovah's Witnesses can be traced back to a publication? Whether it be a recent Watchtower magazine regarding the "new interpretation" of "generation" or the Daniel book explaining who the world powers are.....or the Revelation book explaining thta the seven trumpet blasts (i'm trying not to laugh) were seven conventions held by the Bible Students in the 1920's......my point is that every last doctrine and teaching can be traced back to a publication. So.....who writes the publications? Who puts into print the "new light" that surfaces once the old light dies? Are you consulted? I know never was. The little old lady in my old KH that was of the "anointed" was never consulted. So who it is that assists these seven men with interpretations?
Egg - Tell me this, @outsmartthesystem: Of the seven members of the governing body -- Herd, Jackson, Lett, Lösch, Morris, Pierce and Splane -- which of these provided the adjustment that Jehovah's Witnesses received back in 1942 regarding the change in our understanding of Bible chronology to which all Jehovah's Witnesses adhere today? If you don't know, that's ok, but I only ask this question to point out how stupid this idea of yours that seven men are responsible for how all Jehovah's Witnesses interpret Scripture.
This shows the sad state of mind control you are under. In 1942, obviously those seven men were not part of the "governing body". In 1942, Rutherford was making the calls. So it was Rutherford and his minions that finally came to the conclusion that Jesus came back invisibly in 1914. Rutherford answered the door a short 28 years after Jesus started knocking on it. The Rutherford administration made its interpretations. As did the following Knorr administration. As did the Franz administration. As did the Henschel administration. As does GB 2.0. As will GB 3.0. This explains the constant change.....because these interpretations are the whims of man. Unless of course.....you feel that the holy spirit is directing all of these interpretations and not the men that put it in writing. If that's the case...the holy spirit shouldn't have made Jesus wait so long. It should have directed Russell to open the door "at once" like Luke 12:36 says. Or maybe the holy spirit did direct....but Russell and Rutherford were to damn dumb to follow? Or maybe they chose to be like you and disobey "theocratic order"?
Egg - There are those of us that know the difference between a recommendation that comes from the governing body and a command that comes from God.
Would you be so kind as to make a list of both and post it? That a ways.....lurkers may be able to decipher once and for all what rules they are allowed to break and what ones they may not.
Egg - I think this to be a stupid request. If you don't know the different between a recommendation that comes from someone and a command that comes from the Almighty, then you're lost and I'd doubt that anyone will be able to help you. Maybe someone would be willing to help you, but I'm not willing to offer you any assistance with this. Frankly, like I told @Vidqun recently, I wouldn't know how to help someone that doesn't understand basic concepts.
Perhaps. I don't claim to be of your superior intellect. In fact most JWs are very much uneducated. Especially those in 3rd world countries. I'm sure your God feels the same way you do. They're lost and no one can help them. All those uneducated witnesses in 3rd world countries that can barely read let alone exercise good judgment between the blurred lines of biblical rules and society based dogmatism will just have to die at Armageddon. Is avoiding birthday celebrations a recommendation or a command from God? Is marrying someone who isn't a JW a recommendation or a command from God? Is avoiding gambling a recommendation or a command from God?
Egg - Now it's true that certain ones among Jehovah's Witnesses -- not all of them being elders, for many sisters are participants in the propagation of such "commands of men" as well -- and many former Jehovah's Witnesses here like you and @cantleave are also just as guilty of engaging in spreading such propaganda about the Society's teaches and iron hand on God's congregation since that is what some of you did before you disassociated yourself or were disfellowshipped from it, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach such a "doctrine," and neither does the Society teach such a false doctrine, and repeating this mantra as to a violation of some rule imposed by some Grand Poobah of Jehovah's Witnesses against posting on websites such as this one over and over again simply won't make this false doctrine true.
Ah....how slyly you have made a little switcheroo with the words of iCeltic. iCeltic never said it was a DOCTRINE of JWs that you not post on websites such as this. He said that you received (from your leaders) INSTRUCTION not to post on such websites. I like how you changed INSTRUCTION into DOCTRINE and then proceeded to say that it is a lie that such DOCTRINE exists. You've set up your own straw man argument to defeat hoping no one would notice. Hmm.....I wonder where you learned how to do that? Again....no one says it is DOCTRINE that you not post here. But it is INSTRUCTION - that you choose to ignore. Your independent spirit is very troubling.
What? No comment? You don't wish to explain why you set up a straw man argument?
Egg - You are free to be judgmental and be a busybody in other people's affairs, @iCeltic, but Christians should not be judging others and should live quietly and be minding their own business and not be minding someone else's business. If you were a Christian, then you would to be paying attention to yourself and to what things you do and not be worrying about me and the things I do.
Egg - Christians are a free people, and as such are guided by their own consciences that have been trained to distinguish between right and wrong. You do not have to believe me. I'm fine with you and others on here believing whatever things you wish to believe, which is how it should be, with each one carrying his or her own load and each one proving to himself or herself the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Agreed. But I'd still like to know why YOUR conscience allows you to disobey "Jehovah's arrangement."
Again....why does humble submission to God's arrangement not apply to you?
Egg - Since no one would take advice from a pedophile on child-rearing
This is actually a very weak analogy. Accepting advice on child-rearing from a pedophile would not be out of the question. Perhaps that person has helpful advice from a medical standpoint....or from an educational standpoint. A good idea is a good idea regardless of who it may be coming from. Of much more importance would be not allowing such a person to come in contact with your children because that is where the danger lies. Come to think of it.....I am pretty sure the governing body has given similar advice. Something along the line of not going to websites like this one because that's where the danger of "spiritual predators" lies..... :)
Would you like to try inserting another failed analogy here?
Egg - If you are merely concerned about my salvation or my spiritual welfare, please don't be; I'm fine.
Are you sure? You've displayed a very independent attitude. You have rejected the advice of your leaders....which clearly shows that you are not "following Jehovah's arrangement". And you regularly converse with disfellowshipped individuals. I am not sure Jehovah wants such a Korah-like influence in his lovely "new system". You might want to think about repenting before "what's coming down the pike real soon now" gets here.
Does your silence here mean that God DOES want those with independent attitudes and that reject the advice of "his visible organization" in his lovely new world?
Egg - Perhaps you've noticed that at the beginning of this century a revamping occurred, so that the governing body as it formerly existed is no more; for example, the president of the Society does not sit on the governing body. Eventually, there will be no governing body as they are now known to us and all communications as far as our organized work is concerned will soon be coming through the elders.
Perhaps you should inform the governing body of these revelations of yours. They may need to make arrangements
Egg - Now things are changing and many of you that have monitoring God's organization for some reason -- maybe you do so as a backstop against the possibility that you were wrong and Jehovah's Witnesses is God's organization, I don't know -- have been left totally in the dark. But I'll continue to post here as long as I decide to do so until @Simon should declare JWN to be an apostate website.
It is quite simple. We enjoy watching the cult that we used to be a part of slowly crumble under the weight of its own hypocrisy. And I love that you'll post here until Simon should declare that it is an apostate website. The only people that you banter with on this site are those that are admittedly DFd or DAd.....or those that have faded. Regardless we are all promoting anti-Watchtower sentiments. But the TECHNICALITY that Simon has not OFFICIALLY deemed this to be an apostate site somehow makes it ok for you to be here? Exactly how does an official lablel (apostate site vs non-apostate site) change ANYTHING? Somehow God approves of you conversing with DFd and DAd people simply because the website hasn't been labled yet? That's awesome! I guess I'll let you come over and see my pet lion in the new system. After all, my label still says I am a witness.
Egg - This was part of my response to a question asked by @iCeltic. I don't recall asking you a question and I don't care what things you do to bide your time until the great tribulation arrives. You don't need to explain anything to me. I don't care what you are doing or why you are doing it, @outsmartthesystem. Even though it seems you want to take out your anger against Jehovah's Witnesses or probably, more specifically, against certain ones among Jehovah's Witnesses, your beef is with someone else, because I don't know you or want to know you. Don't use me as a substitute because you lack the fortitude to buy a plane ticket to go and call out the ones against whom your anger rages.
Here is a revelation for you. This is a PUBLIC forum. You don't have to ask me a direct question in order to get a response. If you didn't want me to chime in you should have made your message private. We've been through this. If I didn't have family in the cult I would gladly tell your cult leaders how I feel about them. Your challenge to me is akin to a North Korean being challenged to tell their dear leader how he really feels about life under that regime. It will only result in pain, frustration or worse. The game is rigged. You are not being used as a substitute. You are here, against the admonition of your cult leaders. And your purpose is to defend them. You are fair game. You desperate plea above is like a front line soldier begging for his opposition not to attack him. It is pathetic. And since you chose to babble instead of answering my questions, I'll post them again. Exactly how does an official label (apostate site vs non-apostate site) change ANYTHING? Somehow God approves of you conversing with DFd and DAd people simply because the website hasn't been labled yet?
Egg - After that stunt you pulled awhile back in posting one of the longest and pointless messages I've ever seen posted to a thread on JWN, you should feel fortunate that I posted any response to any of your posts in this thread. You are someone that loves to argue over minutiae, and I never forget stunts like the one you pulled, and be advised that I may pass on responding to any subsequent post you might make to this thread unless those posts should be on topic.
I am not sure what "stunt" you are referring to. But you are indeed correct. I nearly lost bladder control when I saw that you had graced this board with a response to me. Wow. Talk about feeling privileged! I don't know if I could even sleep this weekend had you not replied. I like to argue over relevant topics when I see that your reasoning or lack thereof is clearly flawed. I still am not sure of what stunt you are talking about. If it is a past lengthy post on a different thread.....then you may want to take a look in the mirror before you call the kettle black. If you pass on responding that is ok. I am sure I will find a way to trude onward. But I do have a question. In the past you've explained to me that you post on this site in the hope that you will defend "the organization" for any lurkers that may be reading. Thus far you have refused to answer several questions because they are "off topic". How are you defending your organization by refusing to try and justify how you maintain humble submission to "God's arrangement" while at the same time ignoring the admonitions that come from that same "arrangement"? Your refusal to answer it is indicative of spineless hypocrisy. Notice.....I did not call you a spineless hypocrite. I merely said that your actions are indicative of spineless hypocrisy.
