You Know--very poor answers...

by stocwach 8 Replies latest jw friends

stocwach

Since you probably planned ahead of time not to return to the first thread I started, I am reprinting here for your convenience :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You Know:
Why do you JW's consistently only answer some questions (answers I might add that severely sidestep the issues, or bring something totally irrelevant into the picture), though not others? Do you really think we will just forget about the ones that you conveniently choose not to answer, hoping that we will not notice because of all your rhetoric and jibberish that you include in your answers to other questions? (I don't expect you to answer this at all, so stop sweating--these are rhetorical questions)
You obviously have no answer for how somehow an apostate could have received new light ahead of the governing body. And it is with this foundation that your entire post is totally irrelevant:
[QOUTE]consider the fact that Christ is referred to in prophecy as the Stone of stumbling and a Rockmass of offense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree that the Bible says this, but what does it have to do with the topic??? I didn't ask "If Jesus was really God's son, why would he allow him to be a stumbling block?" Interesting that you would reference Jesus when I asked "If WT was truly God's organization..." I didn't ask for an analogy, something you JW's just love to impose, don't you?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the question could have been asked back in Jesus' day: 'If Jesus were really the Messiah how come so many stumbled over him and failed to recognize and accept that he was the Christ?'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, let's assume I wanted an analogy. Your response only applies however if my question were "If WT was truly God's organization, why does he allow it to stumble people out of the org.?" You however either totally missed the crux of the question or conveniently sidestepped hoping I wouldn't notice (I suspect the latter). I was referencing people stumbling due to policies that later were changed, that in hindsight proved that they were right all along. You have not at all answered why God would allow THIS, nor can you prove Biblically that this occured back in Jesus' day.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is as if Jehovah changed policies on the Jews. He allowed them to cultivate certain false expectation as to what the Christ was and was not supposed to do, and when those expectations weren't realized it served to stumble people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God does not change. Of course he ALLOWED them to cultivate false expectations--it's called FREE WILL! I am not questioning that fact! But the important point that you totally miss here is the false expectations have proven to be just that--FALSE!!!!!!!! They have been proven the test of time, and their expectations didn't years later actually prove to be true, did they????? Why can't you see the WT org. is the exact opposite of first century history???? Numerous doctrinal flip flops have occured throughout the years that have proven naysayers right all along in hindsight! Show me Biblically wer this has occured once, let alone hundreds of times as in the case of the WT.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
many were stumbled and disturbed when he told his disciples that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. They likely reasoned as you do, that if Jesus were the Christ he wouldn't say such things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When did Jesus reveal at a later date that he was wrong and that they shouldn't eat his flesh and drink his blood? Again, those that were stumbled were wrong, weren't they? Nothing has changed. Now, if it did, than absolutely, I would question whether Jesus was Christ. But it didn't happen did it? So, step outside and look in, and it is your reasoning that is severely flawed when it comes to the WT being God's organization!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David was one of Israel's finest kings and yet he caused the nation to stumble when he ordered a census to be taken. So your reasoning is faulty and that's why you set yourself up to be stumbled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me in the Bible where the view of those stumbed because of the census reveal itself to be "new light" after all? You simply can't do it, can you? I nominate you to be poster child for faulty reasoning! I bet you got crushed in debates in school, didn't you?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are following men then natuarally you are eventually going to stumble over their shortcomings. It's inevitable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much! Those are the most prophetic words I've ever seen come out of your posts! Now apply this to the WT Society, and maybe you will finally open your eyes. Many unfortunately have been stumbled away from God indefinitely because of the faulty teachings of the men of the GB.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But those who truly love God and rely on his wisdom and not their own are safeguarded from being stumbled.[/QUOTE]
Fortunately, many people have only been stumbled away from the WT Society, and not God, because they truly love God and rely on His wisdom, and have been released from the teachings of men.
stocwach
[ Profile Above ] Re: You Know and Yadirf.... Mar 10, 2002 10:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologize for the poor formatting, I am still fairly new and see I messed up a couple times, most notably at the bottom--I superimposed my reply within You Know's quote.
Oh yeah, and You Know--I'm also still waiting for your explanation on where in the Bible the GB deciphers that certain parts of blood are okay, but others are not?
terafera

Stocwach,
I think you have made very good points here. I dont think this person will give you answers, but I wanted to let you know I can see you've done some time and thought into this post.
I know when I was a JW, I would've tried to answer your post, but after awhile, would get frustrated and give up. Because really, I wouldnt have had the answers and it would have made me mad, thinking that being a Witness I would be right. *does that make sense? *
You make very good points. I hope to see someone give a good answer.
Beck_Melbourne

Hi Stocwach
You are right...there are rehearsed answers from borg members...and then the practice of sidestepping when they are questions that they are not ordinarily asked..kinda like your questions. If the question isn't in the Reasoning Book it takes a thoroughly researched individual to be able to come back with a fair and reasonable response...not everyone can be bothered. Sometimes it is worthwhile putting in the effort to answer someone if you think there is a chance that they might be 'won over'...so I don't think Terafera is right...I don't think you will get the answers you seek.
But you bought up some good points.
Beck
You Know

You Know: Why do you JW's consistently only answer some questions (answers I might add that severely sidestep the issues, or bring something totally irrelevant into the picture), though not others?
I think the reason many of Jehovah's Witnesses don't know the answers to a lot of questions that apostates raise is, for one thing, they haven't been exposed to the deep things of Satan, and secondly, because they have never had to sit down and take the time to analyze things and come up with the correct answers.
Do you really think we will just forget about the ones that you conveniently choose not to answer, hoping that we will not notice because of all your rhetoric and jibberish that you include in your answers to other questions? (I don't expect you to answer this at all, so stop sweating--these are rhetorical questions)
I am always happy to answer questions and challenges to my faith. I do, though, have a tendency to stay on the front couple of pages on the active topics, so that unless someone brings up a thread, I am not likely to keep reading and responding after the topic fades from the front page. Honestly though, I have been at this for 5 years now. In all modesty, there are no questions or issues related to my faith that I can't reasonably answer. The problem though that I face as one of Jehovah's Witnesses on this board, is that oftentimes the answers are not exactly what the Watchtower teaches. So, in those instances it is really a no-win situation for me. The intent of the apostasy is to cause others to come to distrust the Watchtower, and I have little to gain in respect to persuading others if I also condradict what the Watchtower teaches. Besides, most apostates are throughly familiar with what the Watchtower teaches while being largely ignorant of Jehovah's word, so that they are quick to accuse me of apostasy if my answers deviate from the standard Watchtower answer. So, that's what I am up against. I can easily defend my faith using the scriptures at my disposal, however, at what price in view of the fact that some of present teachings of the Watchtower, mostly related to prophecy, are not so easily defended. Because most of you were mere Watchtowerites before you became opposers, the only answers you accept as the "right answers" are those that deny that Jehovah has any connection with Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower.
You obviously have no answer for how somehow an apostate could have received new light ahead of the governing body. And it is with this foundation that your entire post is totally irrelevant:
Of course I have an answer. The answer is that such tinkerings with policy and procedure is not new light at all. That's simply a well-worn phrase that you have taken up that has very little meaning. "New light" is something that comes from God's word. It is something that can be proven by reasoning from the Scriptures. Typically "new light" comes in a brilliant burst. For example: In the first century the apostles imagined that Jesus' kingdom was earthly. That's why they could understand what he was talking about when he spoke of his death. So the new light for them came when the resurrected Jesus opened their minds up to the prophecies that dealt with his sacrificial death and resurrection. We could also say that the apostolic decision on circumcision was "new light." Which, incidently, cause many Jews to stumble out of the truth and become enemies of the torture stake as Judaizers. So, interestingly, in effect the apostles' policy shift stumbled many out of the truth.
The point is "new light" can only come from Jehovah. He is the source of light. Satan on the other hand is constantly
"transforming himself into an angel of light." As it relates to your question, apostates do not have any insight into Jehovah's word. None. They have never, and can never be on the forefront of any genuine revelation of truth that will impact Jehovah's people in a positive way. However, fault-finding is another matter. It is relatively easy to point out error. But, simply finding fault with something is not the same as offering a realistic scriptural solution.
In the case of the example you gave dealing with blood fractions, there is no Scriptural reasoning involved, that I am aware of anyway, except of course to "abstain from blood." The Governing Body simply made a decision, that besides abstaining from the main components of blood, that anything beyond that is up to each one's conscience. Apostates, though, for the most part, are opposed to any and all abstainence from blood, or any imposition imposed by the Society for that matter. So it is total hogwash that apostates receive new light before Jehovah's people.
I totally agree that the Bible says this, but what does it have to do with the topic?
If people stumbled over the perfect Son of Jehovah, how much more so are unreasonable ones going to find reason to stumble over what imperfect men say and do?
Interesting that you would reference Jesus when I asked "If WT was truly God's organization..." I didn't ask for an analogy, something you JW's just love to impose, don't you?
Yes, as a Christian it is natural for me to look to the example of Jesus for answers. Jesus' opposers were always trying to entrap him and they rarely accepted his answers. So, yes, I always try to defer to Christ. And my opposers rarely accept my ansers either. Some things never change.
You have not at all answered why God would allow THIS, nor can you prove Biblically that this occured back in Jesus' day.
Sure I have. Jehovah allows it stumblings to go on in order to refine his people. It is very Scriptural. I have written rather extensively on that topic in the past and really don't see the need to go into detail at this time. If, though, I judged you to be sincerely looking for answers to your faith, rather than just testing me, I might be more inclined to go into detail and walk you through it.
But the important point that you totally miss here is the false expectations have proven to be just that--FALSE!!!!!!!! They have been proven the test of time, and their expectations didn't years later actually prove to be true, did they
You don't seem to know at all what you are talking about. The apostles had false expectations, that were not realistic or reasonable. But, ultimately their faith led them to a point where their hope was realized. It's the exact same scenario that's being played out today. So, you are right---God doesn't change.
Why can't you see the WT org. is the exact opposite of first century history????
Because it's not. You are simply making wild-eyed assertions and don't really know what you are talking about.
Numerous doctrinal flip flops have occured throughout the years that have proven naysayers right all along in hindsight! Show me Biblically wer this has occured once, let alone hundreds of times as in the case of the WT.
Well, I already gave the example of the apostles' policy flip-flop on circumcision, and how it stumbled a lot of the Jews. But, the very advent of Christianity was in effect a huge phase shift in Jehovah's purpose that very few Jews where prepared for, and so they were consequently stumbled. Also, the apostles suffered from a fiasco similar to 1975 when they taught for many years that John would still be alive by the time Christ returned.
When did Jesus reveal at a later date that he was wrong and that they shouldn't eat his flesh and drink his blood? Again, those that were stumbled were wrong, weren't they?
Yes, that's the point. Just as those who are stumbled today are wrong. You are wrong because you have come to erronous conclusions. Jehovah hasn't seen fit to safeguard you from stumbling because that's not what you wanted. In the case of those who stumbled over Jesus' saying that they had to eat his fleash and drink his blood, they were obviously looking for an excuse to leave Jesus while saving face that the defect was not theirs. So they found fault with Jesus' teaching. And we could say that Jesus' kindly gave them a reason to leave. He knew that's what they wanted. Same is true today with apostates. They want to find a reason to leave. That's why Ray Franz is viewed as a savior by apostates because he gave you what you imagine is a legitimate reason for abandoning your faith. The very fact that the vast majority of apostates are immoral dogs speaks for itself.
Show me in the Bible where the view of those stumbed because of the census reveal itself to be "new light" after all?
Your question doesn't make any sense. Do you want to try and re-word it into something coherent? / You Know
Englishman

I think YK is having a browser problem. This is all he gets lately. http://www.somethingawful.com/nointelligence/
Englishman.
You Know

You are right...there are rehearsed answers from borg members...
The truth of the matter is that the apostates' answers are rehearsed. I never answer according to the Reasoning book, since for the most part it doesn't contain information or reasonings intended to overturn apostate reasoning. Since I usually give answers that most apostates have never encountered before, the apostates generally resort to accusing me of running ahead of the Watchtower or of being an apostate myself. The bottom line is that you have refuse to accept the real answers for the reason that you are insincere. The Bible in fact describes apostates as "accursed children." There is no reason for me to doubt that that's what most of you are. / You Know
TD

The Governing Body simply made a decision, that besides abstaining from the main components of blood, that anything beyond that is up to each one's conscience. Apostates, though, for the most part, are opposed to any and all abstainence from blood, or any imposition imposed by the Society for that matter.

Hogwash yourself, Robert! A number of us “apostates” have the utmost respect for the sanctity of life and blood and are scrupulous in a contextual observance of the Decree.
Your problem here is that like most JW’s, your understanding of not only your own native tongue, but the language of the Bible itself (which you claim to know so well) is so poor that you are willing to accept the mindless invocation of an intransitive phrase as a stand-alone construction in the absence of a prior context.
You and I have been over this once or twice before. You didn’t get it then and I don’t expect you to get it now. However for the benefit of those who may read this thread and wonder what I’m talking about, I’ll explain:
Intransitive verbs (like abstain) can neither take a direct object nor transfer action from subject to object. You can for example, abstain from tearing paper, or from writing on paper, or from wasting paper, but the idea of an abstinence from the object -- paper itself is meaningless. Even though we often casually think and speak in terms of abstaining from objects, “blood” CANNOT be made to be the direct object of the verb “abstain.”
It is for this reason that in English at least, we rarely use an “abstain from” construction outside of situations where the intended audience will easily be able to make the connection and supply the unspoken verb. To illustrate, consider the following two simple examples:
“Her obstetrician said, “Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol.””
“His dermatologist said, “Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol.””
Note that despite the fact that the phrase, “abstain from alcohol” appears in both sentences, it does not negate the same action in each instance. We would understand the first example to mean “Abstain from drinking beverages containing alcohol”, and we would understand the second to mean “Abstain from the topical application of alcohol.” The women’s abstinence from alcohol is completely unconnected with and to the man’s abstinence from alcohol.
The reason for this is simple: We DO NOT “abstain” from objects, we “abstain” from finite acts done in connection with objects. When the finite act is not spoken the audience must make an interpolation based upon the context. This can be seen in the fact that in the two examples above, our only source for the verbs “drink” and “apply” is the context itself.
Although English is not the language that the book of Acts was originally written in, the problem is essentially the same. The phrase in question here is apechesthai....to haimatos The verb apechesthai is the infinitive form of the present middle indicative apechomai and as such, does not express a complete thought. An additional verb or verb phrase is required to make the transition between subject and object. Accordingly, the phrase to haimatos is not the direct object here, nor is it intended to be treated as such since it is declined in the ablative case. The grammar of the Decree therefore by its very nature leaves the predicate incomplete, but in the context of a discussion on whether Gentile converts to Christianity must be circumcised and follow the Law, this is hardly a problem.
The immediate audience would clearly have understood “blood” to be a reference to the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law, and as far as we are concerned therefore, the question becomes one of whether the eating of blood is morally equivalent to the transfusion of blood. This fact does not by itself invalidate the JW blood doctrine, but it does make any Divine condemnation of transfusion medicine implicit rather than explicit.
The idea of an abstinence directly from the object --an integral part of our bodies no less, is a common attempt by the unscrupulous and ignorant to avoid this hurdle and sidestep the necessity of establishing equivalency.
2SYN

YouKnow: Please answer TD, he's asked some pretty good questions!
Also, I'd love to see how God's Organization can change doctrines that years ago sent people to early deaths, and today the doctrines are different enough that they would have saved those other people. Who is responsible? Surely God, in all his might and power and speaking only pure, true Light to his Faithful and Discreet Slave, wouldn't have allowed something like that to happen?
The earlier in the forenoon you take the sun bath, the greater will be the beneficial effect, because you get more of the ultra-violet rays, which are healing. - The Golden Age
stocwach

We could also say that the apostolic decision on circumcision was "new light." Which, incidently, cause many Jews to stumble out of the truth and become enemies of the torture stake as Judaizers. So, interestingly, in effect the apostles' policy shift stumbled many out of the truth.
First, you need to read Acts 15:23-24 carefully, and I'll quote the New Living Translation: 'This is the letter they took along with them: This letter is from the apostles and elders, your brothers in Jerusalem. IT IS WRITTEN TO THE GENTILE BELIEVERS in Antioch, Syria, and Silicia. Greetings! We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but THEY HAD NO SUCH INSTRUCTIONS FROM US. So it seemed good to us, having unanimously agreed on our decision, to send you these official representatives, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the sake of our lord Jesus Christ. So we are sending Judas and Silas to tell you what we have decided concerning your question. For it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these requirements...' The apostles were not the ones who initially imposed the idea of circumcision on the Gentiles, only to later flip flop and say it was not necessary! There was no prior circumcision policy whatsoever for the Gentiles!!!!In fact, if you read vs. 5--it explicity points out it was ROGUE MEMBERS OF THE CONVERTED PHARISEES that were saying circumcision was required for the Gentiles! The apostles pointed out their error and resolved the matter quickly and accurately with no reversal of Christian doctrine, no protracted period of confusion, let alone a period of years where a false teaching was promoted and enforced as Christian orthodoxy. The decision withstood the test of time, and it was the correct one. In other words, they didn't first decree that every male Gentile must be circumcised (or in the case of the blood issue--every person must not take any form of blood transfusion) and then 10 years or so later, reverse themselves (as in the case of the blood issue--say it is now okay to take certain fractions of blood with no penalty) without a word of apology to those that had been thrown out of the congregation for noncompliance with the prior, faulty decision. On the other hand, reversing decisions is mainstream with JWs, and a huge reason why so many have left the religion.
Apostates, though, for the most part, are opposed to any and all abstainence from blood, or any imposition imposed by the Society for that matter. So it is total hogwash that apostates receive new light before Jehovah's people.
How can you deny that apostates have been punished for views that ultimately became the same views of the Governing Body years later??????? Numerous people were disfellowshipped for disagreeing with the 1914 theology that "this generation would not pass away before all these things occured...", but the Society's view today has proven these apostates to be correct all along!!!!!!!!!! The new light (or whatever you want to call it, i.e. "tacking") that the GB miraculously all of a sudden had revealed to themselves was already manifested in the apostate's views!
You don't seem to know at all what you are talking about. The apostles had false expectations, that were not realistic or reasonable. But, ultimately their faith led them to a point where their hope was realized. It's the exact same scenario that's being played out today. So, you are right---God doesn't change.
I wish I had a chart with stick people on it, maybe then your brain would grasp the point here. Those that chose to take blood fractions prior to 1990 because they disagreed with WT policy could be considered to have "false expectations" re: blood policy, and were disfellowshipped for their actions. Years later however these "false expectations" have actually revealed themselves to be true after all, yet many will never return to the organization! If WT was truly God's sole org., he would not allow this anamoly, which is proven in the case of those that were stumbled back in Jesus' day--the passage of time didn't reveal that those that were stumbled were right all along about their doubts of Jesus.
Your question doesn't make any sense. Do you want to try and re-word it into something coherent?
Again, your intelligence and discernment level really concerns me. I will try to put this in the simplist of terms for you--you chose to bring up the issue of census as being a stumbling block. What does this have to do with anything?????? Again, I am questioning how God could allow for an apostate to be stumbled for a policy that would later change and prove the apostate to be correct after all! The census would only be relative if you could show that God allowed people to be stumbled because of the census, despite years later the census policy changing that would have proved those that were stumbled correct all along. BOTTOM LINE, YOU CANNOT DO THAT!!!!!!!

You Know--very poor answers...

Share this