The new light subject was great,never thought about it like that. I'm always looking for some logical explanation for my son, or a question that would get him thinking about some of their explanations. I don't see this as cult jumping,it's info that can be used to help others to do their own critical thinking. thanks!
New Site JW Outreach
by Bangalore 25 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
steve2
Fair enough JWOP. I have jumped the gun and apologize.
Over the years I've become a bit jaded from proponents of various religious denominations declaring that they are "here" to help JWs. It turns out their agenda preceeds and smartly follows them withy more than a faint whiff of out of the fry pan into the fire.
From my perspective, they are lashing on the Lord or his equivalent way before the exiting JWs have even sorted out basics. There ain't nothin' wrong with religion; it's about timing. I'd never talk to a person in a irreconciliable marital relationship about the joys of a loving and secure marriage. It would be cruel and confusing. Similarly, I'd never talk to anyone about the joys of a loving and secure religion or set of (yawn) 'Biblical beliefs' when they are in the throes of deciding what to do with their connections to the Watchtower.
I am well and truly over earnest proponents of "the Lord" in all his many guises and disguises (with followup protests that He never changes...oh, right, another hook to lure me in.
-
extractor
Looks great! Good job.
-
Nambo
After fading from the troof, I spent 10 miserable years believing still that it was the truth and that I was damned for leaving it.
Any site that looks at things from a Spiritual standpoint and helps overturn the strongly entrenched things is a wonderfull thing, hats off to you JWOP and shame on you micky takers, there are probably lots of unhappy dubs who genuinely do belive in God and the organisation and unless somebody goes to the trouble of helping them out of it from a Biblical standpoint, they are trapped.
-
Black Sheep
Of course I looked at it before I commented.
The About Us page is revealing.
It talks about polarizing in a way that insinuates that there are only two views to be considered. WT 'Truth' vs 'His truth', (which the contributors to your 'Outreach' will have claimed to have arrived at).
This website is NOT the work of a single individual; instead it is the product of numerous inviduals who invested hours of their time sorting out the facts from the fiction in order to give an honest picture of the denomination.
Replace "This website" with "these magazines" and this could be a cut and paste from a WT, or Public Talk. It's this type of logic that had the gullible joining the Watchtower in the first place.
When people leave cults, they need the aquire the skills to protect themselves from making the same mistakes again, but your 'Outreach' appears to be trying to bypass this education and goes straight into 'them vs us' from page 1, diverting their attention away from the thought that there might be more than the two 'poles' presented by you, (which is another trick used by the Watchtower).
-
Lozhasleft
Looks a pretty good information resource to me. Well done.
Loz x
-
Black Sheep
Looks a pretty good information resource to me
I don't know about that. Lets have a look at topic that came up here a couple of weeks ago.
A site search for noah preach
NOAH'S PREACHING
http://www.witness-outreach.com/NoahPreach.html
I picked this because the WT said 'no' on at least one occasion and Outreach says 'yes'.
Taking a look at Biblical example, we see that God never takes action against the wicked without first giving ample warning.
Really??? It gives examples of when warnings were given, then it gets to Sodom.
Even in the case of the city of Sodom, God looked for any righteous ones before destroying it, and sent two angels to warn those ones of the impending judgment (Genesis 18:20-32 and 19:1-3, 12-17 ).
Who were the two angels sent to warn? The unrighteous? The righteous? Is there anything in this passage to suggest that anyone preached a warning of the coming event to any residents apart from those already selected by God?
The article then gets to Noah
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Noah did try to warn his contemporaries ....
Firstly, they haven't established that "it is reasonable to believe" secondly, just like the Watchtower, anything that follows a phrase like this is speculation, not fact. This website claims to be presenting 'fact'.
Quote from the page:-
The Bible refers to Noah as a “preacher of righteousness” at 2 Peter 2:5 (underline ours):
...and he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people...
Note that there is nothing in the scripture to say that Noah preached any warning about any flood. The passage merely gives the reason for Noah's selection for saving.
... and ... just to demonstrate my point about the site giving the impression that there are only two polar opposites that need to be discussed ...
No mention is made of Australian Aboriginals using firestick farming some thirty thousand years before this flood.
-
JWOP
Black sheep:
The "Numerous individuals" are all of those who created all those other websites and videos which we link to and refer to throughout the site -- and we have no direct connection to the vast majority of those people except that we link to them. We don't want to be "stepping on" others' work, so we are trying to recognized the long hours and efforts that they have also put in to the telling of the facts about the Jehovah's Witnesses. No single site can cover everything about JW's, else it would be too overwhelming, so it 's nice that so many others have already posted content that can be linked to. And they should be recognized for it.
As for the "Noah preaching": It is reasonable to believe that a God who would give the warnings mentioned before that blurb would also provide a warning through Noah because it fits the pattern. To illustrate: If you are known to be a good and honest worker as your employment, and suddenly a bunch of money goes missing, it is reasonable for the employer to believe you weren't the thief because it fits the pattern, even though it isn't an established fact. It is foolish to automatically assume that a reasonable conclusion = solid fact. You're building a shaky argument with that.
As for the Australian Aboriginal firestick farming: The site is not for all things scientific, archaelogical, and whatnot; it's for simply showing the truth regarding Jehovah's Witness doctine, and how well it does -- or does not -- stand up to scrutiny. We try not to get on to too many off-topics stuff (though it can't be avoided sometimes).
It you don't like the site, then simply don't visit. We certainly don't expect everyone to agree with it, and that's each individual's perogative.
-
JWOP
....oh, and as for the WT saying "no" once, remember, they always change their "yes" into "no" back to "yes", etc.... I suppose this will help solidify that point.
-
Black Sheep
As for the "Noah preaching": It is reasonable to believe that a God who would give the warnings mentioned before that blurb would also provide a warning through Noah because it fits the pattern.
You missed my point JWOP. There is nothing in the text to demonstrate that the Sodomites were warned, as well as nothing in the text to demonstrate that a single person heard the warning and did something about it, (which is human nature), therefore the author didn't establish that there was a patern.
Likewise with Noah. Not one scripture demonstrates that he did preach and 120 years after Noah received his instructions, not one single person got on the ark with them? Charlie Manson manages to get converts but Noah can't? How does that make sense?
If you promote the site as containing 'fact', is it acceptable to include speculation?
If you are going to include speculation, would it be more honest to promote it as being 'our view'?
What do you say to an exiting JW kid who reads your site, then tells Dad that Noah did preach, then Dad trashes his statement using a Bible, grammar and some common sense?