by Recovery 131 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Correction: " You have nothing to LOSE and everything to gain...." Late night for me too. Seriously we all know how you feel, take break and get some rest. Just process for a while, its not a competition.
1) Christ knows his sheep.
2) We can do nothing against the truth
King Solomon said: Just to clarify: have you actually read C of C? It would be rather pointless to debate it, if you've not even READ it, or only skimmed it.... 
No, I haven't read it. A) And if you HAVEN'T read it, maybe you can explain WHY.... Haven't had the time or heard of the book before I came across anti-JW websites online. B) If you HAVE read it, feel free to explain WHY you violated GB's order to NOT read it. Perhaps you can present the scriptural basis for the FDS threatening rank-and-file JWs for reading a book they've labelled as 'apostate'? We are encouraged to avoid apostates (2 John 10,11) but we are also encouraged to "make sure of all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and to keep proving to ourselves what the will of God is (Romans 12:2).
For the record, I HAVE read it, but found it to be a dull read, not worth risking getting DFed over (although, the very fact that you'd be risking getting DF'ed for reading such a dull book IS a question you SHOULD be asking yourself, not us). Well I've never heard of that in all my years. If I started reading the book today and finished it tomorrow I would not be disfellowshipped. Do you have a WT quote to back up these statements?
Talesin said: Who cares about Ray Franz' books? Apparently the members of this board, and exJW's the world over do. They can't stop referencing it. Really, YOU go ahead and explain the Daniel prophecies as related by the Tower. 
Why? YOU explain why children who are RAPED are shunned.
YOU explain why child molesters are protected by the WTBTS. Oh please, this is one of the most absurd statements I've read in a long time. Maybe you need to reread the WTS policy on child abuse and stop believing every fictitious tale and groundbreaking testimony by ex JW's. The policy has no other parallel in all of organized religion and takes preventitive measures to protect everyone from the child abuser. YOU explain why one minute people must die because they need a kidney transplant, and the next minute, it's okay to accept one. YOU explain why my aunt died of leukemia before they changed their policy on blood fractions. I'm sorry for any losses on your part. You have to understand the context of these policies. Organ donating and blood fractions were largely unexplored territory and were just beginning to make waves in the medical community. The technology had not been perfected and had many medical risks and was still in the process of evolving and bettering. It takes years and years of research for these kinds of things. It is only recently that blood fractions have become a standard medical practice. The WT was wrong, they admitted it, and they fixed it. That is more than I can say for other religions. I'm dying to know. No, wait a minute! Lots of other people have died, wanting to know. I'm sure there are millions of poor WT victims, according to apostates. In reality, though, if any, the actual number is quite small. I have never heard of anyone dying from following the WTS policies at the time. It's another one of things that's puffed up and exaggerated by opposers to make it seem worse than it really is (like child abuse).
3rdgen: Recovery, what are you recovering from? This is not a rhetorical question. Well I am sort of a recovering apostate. For about while, I was disillusioned by all the apostate websites, refuting JW doctrine/practices. When I read the many essays about our chronology, our so-called failed prophecies, the blood, child abuse, and NGO issues, my faith was weakened and I almost fell out of the truth. I almost wanted to give up and disassociate myself. But I decided to look into things for myself. I decided to do my own research. When I did this, I came to realize I had been deceived/mislead for so long. I was so close to giving up and leaving the only organization where true spiritual food is dispensed. So I am in the process of recovering from this. Being on this board is helping me do so. I will address the rest of your points in another post. Thanks for adding to the discussion.
Aware! said: Did you even visit jwfacts.com like I told you? If you have "The Truth" what are you so afraid of? Of course I've visited JWFacts and also I've read Don Cameron's book, and "The Gentile Times Reconsidered", and many many blog posts by the blood-obsessed Marvin Shilmer. I'm not afraid of anything, hence why I'm here asking for arguments that refute my beliefs to be presented.
Fernando said: I am keen to know how your research is progressing on "the anointed" according to the Watchtower versus according to the New Covenant scriptures, as mentioned in the thread you refer to...
It's going quite well. I will post a new thread about this tomorrow. it seems it was Ray Franz' view that "legalism" is apostasy (ISOCF).
Please could you share your view and reasons? Can you please elaborate. I've read many definitions of legalism and I need to know which one you were referring to, to answer this honestly.
King Solomon said: Noting the hypocrisy of Recovery demanding we use knowledge of scripture (which would be based on STUDYING and having READ the Bible) to disprove WT's interpretation of parable of FWS, yet now he wants to engage in a "debate" of a book he's not even bothered to read, or is prohibited from reading...
This is true. It is a double standard, I admit that. I simply have not had/do not have the time to read this book right now. I thought it would be a lot simpler if the main arguments were presented here and we could just discuss them from there. That would be a lot less time consuming than reading the entire book, agreed?
Ding said: Recovery, Since you're interested in discussing Ray's books, why don't you pick a topic from Crisis of Conscience and start us off? That way, we'll be discussing some aspect of his writing that you're especially interested in talking about. Okay, is it possible for you or someone else to provide me with a PDF of the book? I have been trying to download it, but all the links have expired and have been removed. Another thought: If you find your discussion getting hijacked, try finding some posters who you think are seriously and respectfully discussing the issues and PM them to continue to discussion. Thanks, great suggestion.
DATA-DOG said: Recovery in not ready to hear anything but his own inner monologue. As the old chinese proverb says " Your cup has no room for my tea young man, as it is already full. " You can't teach something to someone who already knows it all. Not at all, I am willing to discuss any doctrine/subject as long as it takes place in a one at a time, organized manner. I can't answer a million different questions about a million different subjects, especially with my posting limit, sorry.
bindadub said: It is not for us to prove the negative, it is for you to prove Jehovah's Witnesses ARE God's people. Most JW doctrines can be disproved with simply proving what IS true (proving the positive).Why do YOU believe Jehovah's Witnesses ARE God's people? That is what I would like to know and what I would be interested in discussing. I would be interested in discussing this as well. Wouldn't this be better for another thread, perhaps?
P.S.: You didn't respond to my particular comments about the meaning of "Who Is the Wise Servant if it's not JWs" that pointed out it is simply another parable about wise servants versus evil servants--not a prophecy as the WT teaches--so I'll be surprised if you respond to me here. ;-) I will respond in that thread when I'm done with this one and the 609 one. If I don't get to it today, I will get it to it tomorrow
Finkelstein: If Recovery wants to debate some of R Franz's accusations as toward nullifying the legitimatize of the JWS/WTS being god's chosen earthly organization, by using the bible, then let him present a pointed argument. This is what open debate is all about, frankly I'mquite interested and intrigued to what supportive argument he can come up with. 
But again somewhat redundant when this person hasn't completely read the book " Crisis of Conscience " This is something I would love to do. I simply do not have the time to read through the entire book. I thought it would be more reasonable for a few arguments from the book to be presented by those who have read it, and then I can answer those specific arguments. That would be less time consuming than reading the entire book, don't you agree?
OUTLAW said: We don`t have to prove a thing. If you claim JW`s are Gods people..Your the one who has to Supply the Proof.Have you read "Crisis oF Concience"?.. Fair enough, I guess I will have to provide proof for JW's, while everyone else spouts rhetoric and cut and paste from ex JW websites? No I have not read it. I've stated this days ago.
Calebs Airplane: Recovery... why are you discussing this subject with known apostates? why are you even a member of this board? Don't you know that this is against Watchtower policy and could lead to your DESTRUCTION in Armageddon? See my response to 3rdgen.
Binadub: Thanks for the clarification.
Tornapart: It seems to me that you are just a stirrer who wants to disturb a hornets nest. You don't seem to be open to any genuine debate, or have any genuine questions. So why don't you just go and do your own research? You are right. Once I obtain a PDF of the book, I will do my own research, and then come to this board with my findings.
mrsjones5: First you say you're not a troll then you say you're off to sleep cuz trolls need sleep too. I think you're confused. I guess you lost your sense of humor when you left JW's didn't you? It's called sarcasm.
DATA-DOG: You can stop with the emotional appeals. I am not mislead or unwary or full of doubts. I've been dealing with apostate claims/arguments for a while now. I don't feel lost/disgruntled/sad/hurt/ or any feeling of animosity or anger towards JW's.
I believe I answered all the reasonable and serious questions.
The troll clock is still running.
No I have not read it. I've stated this days ago.
It's official. Recovery wants to criticize a book he hasn't even read. What an ignorant sod!
Cedars
Let's discuss Charles Dickens "Bleak House".
I've never read it. But I'm sure it's full of boring and dull "rhetoric".
You've said that you are a recovering "apostate". From the short time you've been here and the arguments that you've used, I can see that your research must not have been very deep. You cut and paste articles from the Watchtower. You defend them without any real thought of your own.
By the way, I don't think "Rhetoric" means what you think it means.
You keep saying it over and over to avoid any serious discussion of anything. Basically rhetoric means the art of speaking or writing persuasively. I think the word you are looking for is propaganda? Here are some words you can use, so you don't look like a fool in the future: disinformation, hogwash, promulgation, propaganda, etc...
By using the word "rhetoric", you are complimenting everyone here as an effective speaker... If you mean to say that everyone's speech is lacking in any substance, you may want to rephrase your word to say "empty rhetoric". You'll need to qualify what kind of rhetoric you are talking about. But I digress into my own rhetoric.
If you start a post asking to discuss a specific book, you must know that you look like a complete moron when you say that you've never read the book(s).
If you HAVE in fact read the books, why not pick a subject, like one of the other posters here requested, and we will all talk about whether it is a valid argument or not. Yes? Or is that too much "independent thinking" for you?
" mrsjones5: First you say you're not a troll then you say you're off to sleep cuz trolls need sleep too. I think you're confused.I guess you lost your sense of humor when you left JW's didn't you? It's called sarcasm."
No, it's called confusion. And my humor is awesome thank you.
I have never criticized the book or called it rhetoric. Please provide the quote where I specifically said those words in reference to Ray Franz's books. I do not have to read every page of every book to discuss it's contents. I asked the members who have read the book, to post some of the contents/arguments contained within. It would be much simpler and reasonable to do that, instead of reading the entire book. I'm sorry that's so difficult for some of you to understand.
This picture is for Recovery, who is obviously scared that lightning will come down from the heavens and vaporize him if he dares to read Crisis of Conscience...
See! Gerrit Losch is enjoying reading it, so why not give it a go?!
Cedars
I never said you called Ray's book "rhetoric". It's just a word you use in almost every post when speaking of everyone else that is talking back to you. Just wanted to give you some some advice on the word that you continue to use when attempting to insult everyone's counter arguments. Better from me than from your lovely theocratic ministry school overseer. Wouldn't want you to have to work on inaccurate word usage at the TMS.
I guess if you want to pick a topic from Crisis of Conscience, lets pick the topic of all the GB meetings where they decided what acts would be grounds for disfellowshiping and what would not be. Yes? Let's keep in mind that the GB (and you in your other postings on other threads) have claimed that JWs do not go beyond what is written. So lets see if the Bible commands all those that do the things below to be expelled from the congregation and be deserving of death.
Just to pick out a few:
1. Delivering commercial items to a military base. If you had a military base on your route as a pepsi distributer, you could be df'd for that. Along the same lines, if you managed a security system company and one of the buildings you secured was a church.
2. Oral or anal sex between 2 consenting MARRIED adults
3. Eating a meal with a former JW
4. Getting a blood transfusion
5. Use of tobacco
6. Organ Transplants
Let's just start with those 6 items. One item that would be interesting to discuss is what items the GB decided would NOT be grounds for divorcing. The main one that sticks in my mind was the account of the woman whose husband was caught having sex with an animal. Because it was not genital to genital copulation or coitus, this woman did not have grounds to get divorced. If she DID get divorced, SHE would be disfellowshiped. There was also the accounts of women whose husbands became gay. Because this act had been done analy, the woman also was not allowed to get divorced without threat of df'ing.
Linking this back to your last posts about the GB being the faithful slave, this does not sound very faithful or discreet does it? Where in the Bible can you point that such acts would be disfellowshiping acts? As you accused everyone else in the faithful slave post, why not provide some scriptures that such a person that smokes, gets a blood transfusion, or has oral or anal sex with his wife should be kicked out of the congregation. Please, do so.
I don't want to hear anything about new light. Most of this is current policy (except for the besiality and homosexuality not being grounds for divorce). Recovery, I'd like you to pretend that you were a JW in the 70's. How would you justify these rulings?
Regarding the organ transplants being forbidden... What if you had a son in 1979? He needed a kidney. But due to the societies ban on organ transplants, you let him die. How would you feel in the 1980's when they reversed the decision, and made it sound like the people in the congregation were the ones that were wrong for not getting organ transplants and that THEY were the ones that were calling it cannibalism? Sound like "THE TRUTH" to you? Sounds like a big fat lie to me.
I really don't know why I'm posting this. I strongly doubt that you will answer ANY of these questions.
Recovery
I have never criticized the book or called it rhetoric. Please provide the quote where I specifically said those words in reference to Ray Franz's books.
Now you're claiming your intention in starting this thread WASN'T to criticize a book you've never read? Just how stupid do you think we are?
Do us all a favor..... above all, do YOURSELF a favor and...
DOWNLOAD THE BOOK YOU WISH TO CRITICIZE
READ THE BOOK YOU WISH TO CRITICIZE
THEN COME BACK, AND WE'LL TALK!!
Cedars
